To prevent wage discrimination, Rhode Island’s equal pay law provides that no employer shall discriminate between the sexes in the payment of wages. However, merit-based variations in pay including, but not limited to, those based on skill, experience, and number of hours worked are not prohibited. Any attempt to contract around the equal pay law will be void.
Lacey worked at the Department of Correctional Services as a temporary employee. Lacey’s supervisor was known for “creating a fun atmosphere” by “giving each other a hard time in a joking manner.” The supervisor’s jokes and questions were often sexual in nature, including inquiring Lacey about the frequency, locations, and types of sex she and her boyfriend had. Towards the end of Lacey’s temporary placement, the jokes and questions were made daily and became increasingly vulgar. Supervisor also subjected Lacey to unwanted touching.
In Lascu v. Apex Paper Box Co. (Ohio Ct. App. 2011), the plaintiff, a longtime employee with nearly thirty years of service, was terminated as part of a company-wide reduction in force. She filed suit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas alleging gender discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, and the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed.
The plaintiff, a female professor sued the defendant, alleging that her salary raises were less than those of comparable male professors in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. At trial, both parties’ experts provided statistical evidence based on multiple regression analyses controlled to eliminate any observed gender disparity, including rank, years of service, division, tenure status, and degrees earned. Both experts found a difference in pay between comparable men and women, but disagreed about the statistical significance of that difference.
In Lehmann v. Toys 'R' Us, Inc., 132 N.J. 587, 626 A.2d 445 (1993), the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a file clerk and was later promoted to supervisory positions. After a new supervisor was hired, he began sexually harassing female employees, including the plaintiff, through repeated offensive comments and unwanted touching. The plaintiff reported the incidents to the supervisor’s superior but was told to handle the matter herself.
In the case LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C., 403 So. 3d 747 (Ala. 2024), the Supreme Court of Alabama expanded the reach of the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act to include frozen embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF).
The plaintiff worked for Hy-Vee Foods for 13 years, until her termination in 2000. During her employment, she overheard derogatory remarks by the store director, including phrases such as “fire the bitch” and comments about another employee’s breast reduction. She reported these incidents to human resources and to the director of operations. Shortly after reporting these incidents, the director of operations terminated her, allegedly stating that “it wasn’t a workable situation anymore.” The plaintiff brought claims of sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge.
Littell worked as a paralegal for Allstate in 1996. Aakhus, Littell’s supervisor, regularly told demeaning jokes, touched women inappropriately, commented about other employees’ sexual preferences, and tolerated similar behaviors by other coworkers. After Littell anonymously reported Aakhus to Allstate headquarters, Aakhus started to belittle her in public, disciplined her for pretextual reasons, and became more aggressive in general. Littell eventually left her job after Aakhus denied her leave to deal with a “family crisis.” Aakhus was discharged after Littell left Allstate.
Two plaintiffs, A and B, sued their former employer for wrongful termination, one based on racial discrimination and the other based on gender discrimination.
Here, the plaintiff volunteered at a swap shop operated by the Town of Falmouth at its waste management facility. The defendant was the land supervisor and gatekeeper of the facility. The defendant often visited the shop and made sexual advances toward the plaintiff for three years, despite her requests that he leave her alone. The town subsequently terminated the plaintiff’s volunteer services and barred her from the facility. Id. at 572. The plaintiff sued the defendant for sexual harassment in violation of M.G.L.A.
