The accused was charged with the act of stalking a female customer at a shopping mall, taking photographs of her buttocks in trousers with his cellular phone with a built-in digital camera from a close distance. The court held that this act constituted an obscene act making a victim feel embarrassed or insecure under the Hokkaido Prefecture Ordinance on Prevention of Violent Public Nuisance No. 34 of 1965, which criminalizes obscene behavior.
The plaintiff was denied unemployment benefits by the Employment Security Board because prior to quitting her job, she did not notify her business manager that she was being sexually harassed by her supervisor. The plaintiff appealed.
In Brittell v. Department of Correction, the plaintiff, a correction officer, alleged that the Department of Correction failed to remedy a hostile work environment caused by sexual harassment and rumors about her gender identity.
D described, amongst others, how her manager suggested the day before her appraisal interview that, at that discussion, she should wear a short skirt and a low-cut or see-through blouse – the inference being that doing so would further her chances of a favorable appraisal. The EAT held that the “lewd words” acted as a detriment. The Court concluded that the correct approach when dealing with a course of conduct of harassment should be to limit judgment to the finding of all facts that are prima facie relevant.
Ms. Ericson and Ms. Kornechuk (“the plaintiffs”) brought a private cause of action against Syracuse University and its employees under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.
The public defender is appealing a conviction of sexual assault on behalf of his client. The appeal argues that (1) the facts alleged are imprecise and ambiguous (e.g., how is it possible to restrain someone’s arms while touching them at the same time?) and (2) the sexual contact was consensual because there was no evidence of the victim’s fighting back, she didn’t scream for help, had no injuries or physical signs of assault.
A senior manufacturing supervisor was dismissed after an internal inquiry confirmed that he had inappropriately touched a female employee on the factory floor. He challenged the dismissal under section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, and the Industrial Court accepted the misconduct but ruled that termination was excessive, awarding him back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
The plaintiff was a milker employed by a dairy farm. The plaintiff complained that she was not considered for promotion or training opportunities because she was female. The plaintiff also alleged sexual harassment, in the form of unwelcome comments and jokes. The court found that the plaintiff did not establish that she had been a victim of unlawful discrimination on the ground of her sex.
In Hill v. Cundiff (11th Cir. 2015), a 14 year old eighth grader (Doe), was raped at school by 15 year old eighth grader (CJC), who had a prior history of sexual harassment at the school. The school’s policy on sexual harassment was to accept only three types of evidence as demonstrative of sexual harassment: catching the harasser in the act, physical evidence of the harassment, or an admission of guilt by the harasser.
The respondent, the manager of the Postmen Department at the Benei Berak branch of the Postal Authority, was acquitted of sexually harassing and victimizing a temporary employee, but convicted of unbecoming conduct.
