retaliation

Mrs. Z.A. contended that she had been unfairly dismissed for having refused sexual advances by the personnel manager.  The Court found that Mrs. Z.A. did not have the obligation to prove that she had been the subject of sexual harassment.  Her employer had the burden of proof to show that she had been dismissed fairly.  The Court found that Mrs. Z.A. had been dismissed because she did not submit to her personnel manager's sexual advances, and therefore awarded her punitive damages in addition to six months pay.

Deborah Powell was the women’s basketball coach at Asbury University. She brought numerous complaints over the course of a few years to the University’s athletic director stating that the men’s team was receiving preferential treatment. The University eventually placed Powell on administrative leave, alleging that she had an inappropriate relationship with a female assistant coach.

The Plaintiff worked as a cashier at King Palace Chinese Restaurant, which was operated by King of the King Group Limited (“Defendant”). The Plaintiff alleged that she was sexually assaulted by Mr. Leung, an employee of the Defendant, who made a sexual remark to the Plaintiff and also touched the Plaintiff’s chest. Immediately after the incident, the Plaintiff reported it to her direct supervisor, who promised to follow up on the incident, but did not do so.

Mary Banker was an assistant track coach at the University of Louisville. She made a series of complaints about the conduct of male track coaches, which she believed to be deprecating to women. When the University failed to renew her contract, she filed suit for retaliatory discharge, gender discrimination, and hostile work environment. The Jefferson County Circuit Court found for the University on the latter two counts but awarded Banker damages for retaliatory discharge.

A woman brought suit against her former employer for retaliation and sexual harassment based on claims that (among other things), her supervisor was constantly talking about his penis including graphic descriptions of its size, and his sexual prowess, history, successes, and aspirations. Blizzard did not allege that her supervisor’s comments were directed to her. Instead, she alleged that his comments were pervasive and that the female employees who were receptive to his “management style” received favors and preferences that Blizzard did not.

Donna Solly was employed as a limited-status teacher at Caldwell Area Technology Center. The employer did not renew her employment contract, stating she had an affair with a male colleague. Solly filed suit in the Franklin County Circuit Court, alleging sex discrimination. The Circuit Court found in favor of the employer, but the Court of Appeals of Kentucky reversed and remanded, holding that she had established a prima facie case of sex discrimination.

In Davis v. Wharf Resources (USA), Inc., 2015 S.D. 34, the plaintiff was an employee of Wharf Resources. She applied for a different position within the company, but the position was ultimately offered to a male employee. The plaintiff later learned that her supervisor had made disparaging remarks about women not belonging in mining. She raised concerns about discrimination to management, and several weeks later, she was terminated for alleged disruptive and hostile behavior. She filed a gender discrimination and retaliation claim.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), initiated sexual harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII against New Breed Logistics (defendant), on behalf of three employees.

The plaintiff alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment while working at the Community Action Agency of Greene County, Inc. ("CAAGC"); and that when she complained, her employer fired her, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). The plaintiff argued that her executive director subjected her to sexual ridicule, sexual advances, and intimidation.

The plaintiff-respondent worked as a sales representative for Hoffman-La Roche Inc. (the defendant-petitioner). The plaintiff alleged that her supervisor told sexually inappropriate jokes and asked inappropriate questions on multiple occasions. She submitted complaints to Human Resources, and an investigation was initiated. During the plaintiff’s performance review, her supervisor yelled at her and repeatedly criticized her performance, giving her a below average rating. Shortly after, the company fired both the plaintiff’s supervisor and the plaintiff.