Nadeau v. Rainbow Rugs, 675 A.2d 973 (Me.1996)

In Nadeau v. Rainbow Rugs, the plaintiff worked as an administrative assistant for the defendant, Rainbow Rugs, whose office was located at the home of the company’s president. The plaintiff worked in the same room as the company president and he supervised her work. The president asked her uncomfortable personal questions about her marriage and financially distressed situation, stating that she had options available to make money, but that he needed to speak to her in private about them. He followed this by offering to give her money in exchange for sex. She immediately rejected the proposal, and the president told her that her position was not in jeopardy; but he left the offer open in case she changed her mind. The plaintiff reported the incident that day to a supervisor of the warehouse. However the president was her only supervisor, so she did not report the incident to anyone else. The company had no policies for sexual harassment or procedures for filing complaints. The plaintiff subsequently resigned due to the president’s comments and filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, and suing under 5 M.R.S. § 4572 for a hostile work environment due to the harassment by her supervisor. The Court found that under the Maine Human Rights Act, “employers are liable for hostile environment harassment by supervisors and co-workers if an official representing the institution knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, of the harassment’s occurrence, unless that official can show that he or she took appropriate steps to halt it.” In this case, the Court found that because the president was the plaintiff’s only supervisor, she had no one else to consult, and because the defendant had no harassment policy in place, she had no avenues of relief. Any higher officials than the president were in Belgium. Further, the president was an official representing the company and obviously knew of the occurrence. He could have taken steps to stop the harassment by rescinding his offer, but he left it open in case the plaintiff changed her mind. Thus, the company could be liable for the president’s harassment.

Topics

Geographical location

Keywords

Year

  • 1996

External URL

Court

Type

Jurisdiction