http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/sexual_harassment Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:42:33 -0800 pixel-app en http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11487 Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11487
On Friday, Federal District Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr. entered a consent decree that ends the workplace discrimination lawsuit brought by EEOC lawyers two years ago against the nationwide restaurant chain. The case was adjudicated in a courtroom of the U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois.

Under the decree, 51 current or former employees of Cracker Barrel restaurants in Mattoon, Bloomington and Matteson will share the $2 million settlement fund. In addition, Cracker Barrel will be required to train all employees at those stores on harassment issues and post a notice regarding the outcome of the lawsuit, as well as report any complaints it receives about alleged sex or race discrimination to EEOC officials.

The lawsuit, first filed nearly two years ago, claimed 10 female employees were subjected to “pornographic photographs, cartoons, obscene jokes and sexual propositions” as well as groping and sexual assaults. In total, 51 employees were involved in the charges investigated by the EEOC.

“We’re very happy. This is a great result,” said June Calhoun, EEOC supervisory trial attorney. “It is also important to note that Cracker Barrel will be required to make periodic reports to EEOC when any complaints of harassment or discrimination come from their employees at those restaurants.”

In addition, the decree prohibits Cracker Barrel from retaliating against employees for complaining about illegal harassment or accepting benefits under the decree.

Calhoun said the strength of the case was the fact that several employees had the courage to come forward and complain. Then additional employees became involved when the investigation continued.

“We had 51 workers coming forward and telling the same stories,” she said.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10924 Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10924
The payouts will range from $500 to $26,000 depending on seniority and position.

Legal fees and costs of approximately $15 million will be deducted from the proceeds of the settlement. Originally, about 20,000 claims out of a pool of 29,000 were filed against Boeing. Those claims were based upon alleged acts of sex discrimination that took place at the company’s Seattle-area plants between 1997 and 2000. Approximately 2,400 claims were dismissed as a result of various filing irregularities.

Although the settlement did not require Boeing to admit any wrongdoing, the company did agree to change a number of practices related to hiring, pay, promotion, and the investigation of complaints by employees.

According to the lead attorney for the class, it was remarkable that 60% of the female employees filed claims; usually, a 30% response rate is typical in such cases.

Documents obtained from Boeing during the litigation, which started in 2000, showed that women generally earned $1,000 to $2,000 less than men in similar positions. Company promotion and pay-raise policies magnified these discrepancies as an employee's tenure with Boeing increased.
]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10869 Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10869
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced the settlement Thursday. It filed the lawsuit two years ago on behalf of Christine Gagliardi, who is learning disabled and required a job coach for her position as a greeter, cashier and server for the Golden, Colo.-based company from 1999 to 2001.

Neither Boston Market nor its attorney could be reached for comment.

The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that Gagliardi's co-workers and some supervisors taunted her because of her disability and because she needed a coach. In addition, a male co-worker repeatedly harassed her, sometimes in the presence of managers. The co-worker also made lewd comments and gestures and once pressed Gagliardi up against the wall and touched her inappropriately, the lawsuit said. He later pleaded guilty to criminal charges in connection with the harassment, the EEOC said.

"The EEOC is pleased that this lawsuit has been resolved in a manner that compensates Ms. Gagliardi for the harm she suffered and which also provides for protections against discrimination in the future," said Judy Keenan, the agency senior trial attorney who litigated the case.

Gagliardi, 30, worked with a coach because many mentally disabled workers are entitled to such an accommodation under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

As part of its consent decree Boston Market has to establish procedures for investigating employees' complaints about harassment and discrimination and provide prevention training for managers and employees.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9672 Fri, 22 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9672
In their 2003 lawsuit against UltraStar Cinemas, the women claimed that they were harassed by two managers at a theater in Poway, outside San Diego.

According to the lawsuit, the managers put a retractable knife blade to the plaintiffs' throats, placed them in police-style restraint holds and inappropriately touched and leered at them.

Jurors on Thursday awarded the four women $1.5 million each in punitive damages.

Two weeks earlier, the same jury awarded $850,000 in emotional distress damages to the four plaintiffs. The company filed for bankruptcy after the first verdict, said an attorney for the women.

The four plaintiffs were 16 or 17 at the time the alleged harassment began in December 2001. The managers, were 32 and 33.

During the seven-week trial, attorneys for the four women presented evidence that UltraStar's owners and operators knew about the managers' conduct, but turned a blind eye to it.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9507 Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9507
The attorney representing the victim, declined to comment on the settlement other than to say that recently the "case was settled to the parties' satisfaction."

A McDonald's representative could not be reached for comment. The victim, who was a learning disabled 17-year-old in July 2002 when she was hired to work at the Damascus McDonald's, alleged the sexual improprieties were carried out from that time until September 2002 when she spoke to a female manager. Because the accuser in the lawsuit is also a victim, The Gazette is not identifying her.

The McDonald's job was the girl's first, according to her attorney. Because of her learning disability she processes information on a much lower level than what is normal for her age, she said.

Police investigators determined that another female employee, a 16 year old, was also sexually harassed. Two of former managers at the McDonald's pleaded guilty in spring 2003 to misdemeanor criminal charges.

The girl's lawsuit alleged that the two managers "committed offensive acts of harassment, discrimination and sexual assault," against the victim and others in the restaurant. Unwelcome sexually oriented comments, solicitation, touching and other behavior "caused the plaintiff to reasonably fear, on a daily basis, that she may be subjected at any time, at any location within the store to harassment, discrimination and related sexual assault," according to the complaint.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9331 Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9331
The settlement was announced last week between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Entravision Communications Corp., a Santa Monica-based affiliate of Spanish-language global giant Univision.

"That's very important because in this industry there are very few jobs in Spanish-language television in terms of careers," said William Tamayo, the commission's regional attorney in San Francisco.

The EEOC filed suit in November 2003 on behalf of two former news employees at KSMS channel 67 and other female workers who were allegedly sexually harassed by the station's former news director.

The two news reporter said the news director harassed them during 2000 and 2001 by forcibly kissing, touching, grabbing and propositioning the women.

The federal suit accused Entravision of ignoring the women's complaints about the supervisor's conduct and punishing them for reporting him. According to the EEOC, Long was fired for allegedly refusing his advances, and Medina quit the station after it failed to prevent the harassment.

"Hopefully this settlement will send a message to other employers they have to take steps," Tamayo said.

A third woman, a former news assistant who became a reporter, also was a target of harassment, Tamayo said. The three victims will share the monetary settlement, he said. Her name was not immediately available.

"You should not have to choose between livelihood and peace of mind," Medina was quoted in an EEOC news release.

Entravision also agreed to develop anti-harassment policies and a complaint procedure to be distributed to employees in English and Spanish and to ensure all current employees at the Monterey station receive anti-harassment training.

"Any company should know they should provide training for all supervisors," Tamayo said.

A new California law requires companies with 50 or more employees to have supervisors undergo at least two hours of anti-harassment training, he said.

Tamayo said he is glad Entravision worked with the federal agency to reach the settlement, the latest of several sexual-harassment cases brought against Monterey County companies.

A company spokeswoman didn't return a phone message Monday.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9181 Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9181
Senior U.S. District Judge Harold Albritton signed the settlement agreement in the case, which originally had been scheduled to go to trial earlier this month.

Jennie D. "J.D." Patton, 48, of Montgomery, originally sued the Cubs and the Tribune Co., in 2003 after the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued her a "right-to-sue" letter.

Terms of the settlement were sealed by Albritton, who ordered parties on either side not to discuss the details of the case.

Patton, who works for a Montgomery packaging firm, said she is pleased with the settlement and happy that the two-year court case has been completed.

"All I can say is I'm happy this has been resolved," she said. "I want to thank all the people who stood by my side through all of this. And there were a lot of them."

Even though she's out of baseball right now, Patton says she hasn't abandoned hopes of returning.

"I still love baseball," she said. "I still think it's a dream worth pursuing."

According to court papers, Patton was hired by the Cubs' scouting department on Jan. 5, 1994, as a part-time scout, earning $2,000 a year, plus expenses. Her lawsuit said she helped the Cubs "locate several outstanding baseball prospects."

Patton said she continually expressed an interest in becoming a full-time scout as she gained experience, but she was passed over by men with little or no scouting experience. In addition, her pay was cut, compared to that paid to comparable male scouts.

A full-time scout for the Cubs in 1997-98 was paid about $39,000 annually.

Patton, the only female scout in the Cubs' organization, was fired after she filed her charge of discrimination with the EEOC in 2002. The Cubs said her contract, along with the contracts of several other male scouts were not renewed because of financial reasons.

While she was a scout for the Cubs in the southeastern U.S., Patton was supervised by Jim Crawford. When Crawford was promoted to the new position of professional scout, Patton claimed she should have been hired to fill Crawford's spot. Instead his duties were divided among five part-time scouts.

Patton, a native of Tennessee, first started as a Major League Baseball scout in 1989 with the Chicago White Sox. She later worked for three years as a volunteer coach at Enterprise State Junior College.

"I was always amazed at the depth and breath of Ms. Patton's knowledge about baseball," Enterprise baseball coach Tim Hasley said in an affidavit signed May 17, 2004. "Indeed, she was the best I have ever seen at evaluating talent at the junior college level."

The Cubs and the Tribune Co., said Patton mainly scouted rural high schools and junior colleges in Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee. But Patton said she worked in larger cities in the South, plus throughout the state of Florida.

Preston Douglas, an experienced scout who gave a deposition in the case, said of the Cubs, "One thing I can say very strongly about the Chicago Cubs organization is that it exemplified them, and still exemplifies, as does most of professional baseball, a good 'ole' boy fraternal attitude and practices, with its rules of solidarity, discrimination, elimination and exclusion."

"As early as 1995, I heard discussions and statements within the Cubs organization that Ms. Patton would never be a full-time scout because she was a woman," Douglas said in the deposition. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8980 Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8980
The workers claimed that from December 2000 to April 2001 when all but one were in high school restaurant manager Nathan Kraus subjected them to repeated groping, vulgar sexual comments and demands for sex, according to the lawsuit.

The girls complained to several assistant managers who felt helpless to assist them because Kraus was their boss, too, the girls' attorney, said.

"They finally figured out how to go over Nathan's head, and when they complained to headquarters, they let him resign," Moench said. "The question is why it took four to five months to get reported right."

A consent decree filed Monday in federal district court in St. Louis requires the companies to pay $400,000 in damages and attorneys' fees and not to rehire Kraus. They also must conduct extensive sexual harassment training for management, distribute a revised sexual harassment policy and set of procedures to all employees, and more prominently post in their restaurants a toll-free hot line number for reporting harassment. They also must report to EEOC any additional sexual harassment complaints at the store for two years. The decree still must be approved by the court.

The owners of the franchise Cape Girardeau-based Mid-America Hotels Corp. and Northwest Development Co. deny liability but made a business decision to settle, their attorney, Susan Rowe, said.

"The consent decree specifically states that Mid-America and Northwest deny all liability. The decision to settle the case was based on economics, considering the time and expense involved in a trial and the unpredictability of litigation," she said in a statement.

The companies, owned by the same family, together or separately operate 38 Burger King restaurants in Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois and Kentucky, the EEOC said.

A phone call to Kraus' home went unanswered.

A rise in the number of teen harassment cases in recent years has led the commission to launch a national education initiative called Youth@Work to address discrimination against teenage workers.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8962 Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8962
Almost 3 million youngsters ages 15 to 17 work during the school year, and like Nichols, about 4 million during the summer. For many, that first after-school or summer job, spent taking people's orders or keeping an eye on swimmers, means entry into a new world: a first paycheck, time away from parents, and new friends. But for others, the experience is memorable for another reason.

Nichols, then 17, claims she spent her shifts dodging the come-ons of an older cook who pulled on her apron, touched her and made sexually explicit remarks. She said she complained to managers and asked to be moved away from the man, but a manager refused.

Then one night, as Nichols went to her car in the parking lot, the cook followed her, she alleged, threatened her and exposed himself. She complained again, and when she told her manager to choose between the cook and her, she said she was told it might be best if she left, which the teenager did.

But Nichols responded to her experience by doing a very adult thing: going to court. Today, Nichols is a sophomore in college, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Steak n Shake Operations Inc. on her behalf for sexual harassment and constructive discharge. Steak n Shake has denied the charges in court filings.

Awareness of sexual harassment grew during the 1990s, particularly as Anita Hill accused now-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in hearings that riveted the country. That awareness has trickled down to teenagers who might have looked upon some harassment as teasing in years past and now find they don't have to put up with it.

In Nichols's case, her father hired a lawyer who took her complaint to the EEOC, one of 25 such lawsuits the agency has filed or resolved on behalf of teens this year, compared with eight in 2002.

A Los Angeles area Jiffy Lube franchise, for example, paid $300,000 to three female employees, including two 17-year-old high school students who said supervisors and co-workers targeted them with lewd gestures and explicit references to sexual acts. A Jiffy Lube International Inc. spokesman said the issue was handled directly by the franchisee.

'Particularly vulnerable'
Jack in the Box Inc. paid a $300,000 settlement in June after five female workers in Seattle including three between ages 16 and 21 sued the company, claiming they were subjected to constant lewd remarks and sexual overtures by their direct supervisor. A company spokesman said, according to a news release from the EEOC, that "although our investigation of the allegations in this case showed that we fully complied with our legal obligations, we agreed to increase our training efforts to make sure all employees are treated with respect and consistent with our company policies."

And a Red Lobster restaurant in Kansas settled for $60,000 a suit brought by a 19-year-old server who alleged she was touched inappropriately and subjected to sexual comments by a male co-worker. The restaurant's management ignored complaints until she quit, her suit charged. The company admitted no wrongdoing. A Red Lobster spokeswoman said: "Our company does not tolerate any form of harassment or unwelcome advances."

"Teens are particularly vulnerable because they are new to the workplace, they are impressionable and are more likely than not at the bottom rung," said Jocelyn Samuels, vice president for education and employment with the National Women's Law Center. "They feel less authorized to complain, and they may not know that procedures are available to them."

"As long as humans have a dark spot, you can find a more sophisticated co-worker who takes advantage of someone more naive," said Naomi C. Earp, vice chairwoman at the EEOC, which launched a program this fall to train youths in high schools about sexual harassment after noticing an increasing number of such complaints.

Some teens who are taunted or touched may think the actions are not serious or assume that the culture is just part of work life, said Adele Rapport, regional attorney for the EEOC in Detroit. Her office has seen a number of teen harassment cases.

"A very small percentage of women complain. That's part of the issue with teens," Rapport said. "They are not sophisticated enough to know how to use those kinds of resources to report it."

No frame of reference
Since teens are new to the workforce, they expect the same teasing that happens in high school hallways, experts say, but when teasing is taken to another level, they do not know what to do, particularly if it involves an older co-worker.

In one of the few studies that has measured sexual harassment occurrences among teens who work part time, 35 percent of 712 high school students surveyed said they had experienced it.

"Part of the problem is they have no frame of reference," said Susan Fineran, a University of Southern Maine social work professor who conducted the study. "These are girls' first jobs."

That naivet seems to be changing. "I think the schools are now starting to do more training and put the word out to the kids because schools have their own sexual harassment problems to worry about," said Craig Pratt, a human resources consultant in Oakland, Calif. "Today's teens have more awareness than they had four or five years ago because schools have had to ramp up their awareness of it."

Companies are also more aware of sexual harassment issues and are increasingly providing harassment training to new employees, which makes employees more aware of right and wrong, said Susan Strauss, a consultant who specializes in teen harassment. "I think it sounds like teens are taking heed," she said. "Workplaces as a whole are taking the issue of harassment a little bit more seriously. It makes sense that teens are recognizing it."

Tiffany Grabin, now 25, was the complainant in one of the first cases in which the EEOC focused on teens being harassed at work. When Grabin was 18 and working at a now-defunct athletic footwear store in San Jose, she alleged that a co-worker and a supervisor sexually teased her, taunted her and goaded customers into propositioning her. When the primary harasser put his hands around her neck and asked, "What would your boyfriend do if I snapped your neck right now?" Grabin quit.

'I didn't know what to do about it'
"I knew that it's not appropriate to be treated that way, but I didn't know what to do about it," Grabin, who now lives and goes to school in Los Angeles, said in an interview. "Part of the problem was management. When a grown man is saying things about you, how do you complain to him?"

Her mother found a lawyer, and Grabin's case ended up with Marcia Mitchell, senior trial attorney for the EEOC in San Francisco. "Since then, we've paid much more attention to when charges involved teenagers. Now we're tuned in and seeing more of it," Mitchell said.

The case against the store was settled in March 2001, and Grabin received $111,250, according to the EEOC.

"Just because you're a teenager doesn't mean you don't have rights," Grabin said. "There are laws, and if you know your rights, you are better able to stand up for yourself."]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8869 Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8869
The Union County jury returned the verdict Monday for Karen Caggiano following a three-week trial.

Caggiano, 43, of Bridgewater, testified that she had to use the same bathroom and locker room as male officers in the late 1990s, and that pictures of naked women were posted on lockers.

She endured lewdness, including one sheriff's officer who repeatedly exposed himself in front of her, according to her lawyers.

One of them, Neil Mullin, said the department issued a "whitewashed" internal affairs report that found no merit to her complaints. Caggiano's superiors acted maliciously and intended to hurt her, Mullin told The Star-Ledger of Newark for Tuesday newspapers.

Sheriff Armando B. Fontoura had no immediate comment Tuesday on whether the department would appeal, a spokesman said.

Rosemary Alito, who represented Essex County at the trial, maintained that the department had a thorough response to Caggiano's complaints.

The trial was held in Union County instead of Essex County to avoid conflicts of interest.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8870 Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8870
Harassment comes in all forms based on age, national origin, and gender. Sexual harassment is the predominant form of harassment in the workplace, says an attorney who specializes in sexual harassment litigation and counseling.

On Tuesday, the attorney told The Early Show that sexual harassment is relatively prevalent, but employers are doing a lot to make sure they stop it when it's reported, and prevent it before it happens. Employers hold training seminars, and have updated their policies and handbooks.

The legal definition of sexual harassment is: comments or conduct that women are exposed to that is offensive to the reasonable women and affects the terms and conditions of their employment.

Examples include shoulder rubbing and offensive e-mails, jokes and comments. Sexual harassment usually creates a hostile work environment. If it's on a day-to-day basis and offensive to the employee, then it can be actionable. A single incident is not enough, but if it happens on a repeated basis and the employee says it's unwelcome, then it may be actionable.

Employers must be put on notice. If an employee doesn't say anything, then the employer can't take any action. Sometimes the harassment involves a supervisor, but the employee can go up the chain or go to their human resources department. Once on notice, the employer has a chance to act appropriately and take the necessary steps. But if sexual harassment is reported and the employer doesn't take the appropriate actions, then it can be actionable.

You can win damages if you are demoted or fired because of the harassment, or if you sustain emotional distress.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8795 Thu, 04 Nov 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8795
Debra Beaulieu of Vassalboro told a commission investigator that the unnamed female worker fondled her breasts and buttocks between April 10 and May 7, 2003. She said she let the harassment go the first two times it allegedly happened, but after the third time, with encouragement from her coworkers, she reported the incidents to management.

Beaulieu was fired for "disrupting the workplace" three days later, according to the commission report.

Company officials told investigator Robert D. Beauchesne that the woman being accused of sexual harassment is of Asian/Pacific Island decent and has a difficult time communicating in English. They said the incidents were simply friendly greetings and not sexual in nature.

Beaulieu's statements to the commission investigator painted a different picture.

Beaulieu said advances happened two weeks after she began, again May 3 of that year, this time on the assembly line when the woman grabbed her buttocks. The third and final incident allegedly occurred the following day when the woman rubbed her hands on the sides of her breasts, she reported.

Company officials insisted Beaulieu, who was hired as a summer replacement for vacationing workers, "seemed like a handful," exhibiting "repeated inappropriate behavior" from the first day of her orientation.

"She was loud, abrasive, made inappropriate and unsolicited comments and appeared to go out of her way to draw attention to herself," company officials told the investigator, according to commission documents.

Company officials also said Beaulieu had made remarks about other female workers, calling them rude names and insulting them. The director of human resources at Huhtamaki then decided to terminate Beaulieu's employment based on that behavior.

Commissioners found that Huhtamaki did little to investigate the charges leveled by Beaulieu and that her firing was retaliation for filing a sexual harassment complaint and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the sexual contact had happened in the first place.

The commission now will determine what remedies will be ordered against Huhtamaki. They could include job reinstatement, monetary damages or a written warning.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8681 Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8681
The Rev. Sonia Carmona seeks compensation for medical expenses and damages she says are a result of harassment by Vincent Maroun, a Maronite Catholic priest who previously served as the director of St. Mary's pastoral care department. Both Carmona and Maroun are married to other people, according to the lawsuit. Maronite priests are permitted to marry.

Carmona's lawsuit alleges that between October 2002 and October 2003, Maroun acted inappropriately by constantly asking for hugs and kisses, telling Carmona that God would forgive them for being "intimate friends," and that he once touching her buttocks. Carmona says she complained to the hospital's human resources officials as well as St. Mary's President Peter Marmerstein, but no action was taken against Maroun.

On Tuesday, Maroun, who left the West Palm Beach hospital in October 2003, denied the allegations, as did St. Mary's.

"I don't work there any more, but the lady is a con artist," Maroun said. Maroun said he wanted to speak to the hospital before commenting further.

Don Chester, associate administrator at St. Mary's, said Carmona's allegations had been determined to be unfounded.

"We have not seen the lawsuit that has been filed, however we have investigated the allegations made by Ms. Carmona and found them to be without merit," Chester said. "This matter has also been reviewed by the (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and Ms. Carmona is a party to an arbitration agreement and arbitration is the proper forum for this matter. The hospital intends to vigorously defend itself against this action."

Carmona's suit states that, out of desperation, she wrote a letter to the Diocese of Palm Beach and that she met with Vicar General Rev. Charles Notabartolo. In October 2003, according to the lawsuit, Notabartolo wrote a letter to Maroun stating that his "faculties to exercise Catholic Priestly Ministry in the Diocese of Palm Beach are withdrawn, effective immediately."

Maroun said Tuesday that as a Maronite priest, he reports to a bishop in New York, not the Diocese of Palm Beach. Neither Chester nor Maroun would comment on why Maroun left his employment at St. Mary's.

"It's between Father Vincent and the Diocese of Palm Beach," Chester said.

Notabartolo could not be reached for comment.

Carmona still is employed at the hospital, though her lawsuit alleges that she has been the victim of retaliation and passed up for promotions because of her complaints about Maroun.

As a result of the alleged harassment, according to the lawsuit, Carmona has suffered embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shingles and post-traumatic stress disorder for which she seeks to be compensated.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8682 Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8682
Courtney Prince, 25, of Manhattan, said in a lawsuit in U.S. District Court that the New York Rangers City Skaters cheerleading squad had been warned not to fraternize with hockey players but was allowed to mix with staff at the Garden, where the Rangers play home games.

According to the lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, MSG managers and supervisors met or took some of the dozen cheerleaders to bars and restaurants and bought alcohol for some underage cheerleaders.

In the lawsuit against Cablevision Systems Corp., which manages the Madison Square Garden sports and entertainment business, Prince alleged she was harassed by a member of management at a bar after a post-game party on Dec. 22. She said in the lawsuit that he tried to stick his tongue down her throat and asked her to have sex with him.

She alleged she was fired in January after she was accused of "disparaging" members of management by calling them sexual predators.

MSG said it believed "the allegations are unfounded."

In an interview, Prince said MSG management operated like "a boy's club" and she ran into trouble when she tried to protect younger cheerleaders.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recommended in August that MSG have its employees undergo sexual harassment discrimination training and pay Prince $800,000 in damages. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8683 Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8683
In his lawsuit, David Brown claims he repeatedly told his supervisors about the allegedly "offensive and obnoxious conduct" by the woman, but instead was retaliated against and fired because Wal-Mart did not want to deal with the problem.

Brown's lawsuit, filed in Jefferson Circuit Court, alleges that the woman made inappropriate comments and touched him on his "buttocks and groin area."

Brown's attorney, said he couldn't remember handling another case in which a man was claiming sexual harassment against a woman.

"It's the exception, not the rule," he said.

Brown's attorney, said he considers the case against Wal-Mart to be strong because Brown lost his job on Oct. 11, shortly after he had complained about being harassed.

Brown, who was a stocker and delicatessen worker, claimed he was told he was being fired because he had been taking long breaks and was still in his first 90 days with the company, according to the lawsuit.

"He had never been warned or counseled or told before that his breaks were too long,"Brown's said.

Bill Vanover, a manager at the Wal-Mart on Ruckriegel Parkway who was named in the lawsuit, said he had no knowledge of the lawsuit and declined to comment. Claims made in filing a lawsuit give only one side of the case.

A spokesman for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Gus Whitcomb, said he hadn't seen and couldn't comment on Brown's lawsuit, but said "Wal-Mart has a standing policy of not allowing or condoning harassment of any type at any of its facilities."

Sexual harassment lawsuits filed by men are much less frequent than those by woman, but are increasing, according to statistics from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Sexual harassment claims filed by men with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have climbed from a little more than 9 percent of all charges in fiscal 1992 to about 15 percent in 2003.

Carolyn Wheeler, an assistant general counsel with the EEOC, said many of those claims involve male-on-male harassment.

Harassment of men by women is rarer, she said.

Wheeler said women are less often in a position of power to sexually harass a man.

But, she said, "it is just as offensive and people should feel free to file charges about that kind of behavior."

A recent study by the online service lawyers.com found that 17 percent of the men interviewed had experienced sexual harassment in the workplace, as opposed to 35 percent of the female respondents. But 60 percent of the men who have felt harassed said they were more likely to do nothing about it, compared with 41 percent of the women.

His attorney said Brown came forward because "he was fired for no logical reason."

In Brown's lawsuit, he claims that the female employee created an intimidating and hostile work environment and that he has suffered embarrassment, humiliation and loss of wages.

Brown declined to comment through his attorney yesterday.

His lawsuit seeks punitive damages and a trial.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8685 Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8685
The lawsuit, filed by Kimberly Petersen, alleges CEO Brian O. Harris made offensive remarks about women, hired and fired women because of their looks, engaged in sexual relationships with employees he supervised, and fired Petersen for an improper reason.

The suit also alleges that three men associated with the clinic, Bob Marsalli, James Calvert and Montie Stembridge, falsely told community members or other organizations that Petersen had been fired. Marsalli is running for Klamath County commissioner, while Calvert is running for a seat in the Oregon House of Representatives.

Marsalli said Harris is relocating to a medical clinic in North Carolina. The move, he said, was unrelated to the lawsuit. Klamath Open Door has selected a finalist to become CEO to replace Harris, whose last day was Friday.

Neither Calvert nor Marsalli would speculate on the timing of the lawsuit filed five weeks before the November election.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Medford on Sept. 24. The Herald and News learned about the suit last week after receiving an anonymous letter.

Petersen's suit states that she heard Harris refer to women in terms such as "a fat pig," "typical fat-girl syndrome," "a nice rack" and being "dikes". It says Harris fired a female dental office manager because the woman was a "fat pig" and "he could not stand looking at her."

It goes on to state that Harris was intimate with several female employees, and promoted at least one based on their relationship. It states that Harris interfered with a work performance evaluation of a female employee that Petersen supervised, and contends that Harris publicly yelled at Petersen and physically intimidated her.

The Herald and News was unable to reach Harris for a response.

The document alleges that Calvert told prospective employers for Petersen that she had been fired from the clinic and a previous job at a different clinic, Cascades East. The suit also charges that Marsalli told Petersen's prospective employers she had been fired and was not eligible for rehire.

Marsalli, the human resources director at the clinic, said he has not done anything wrong, and neither has the clinic.

"I don't know why people bring these suits forward," Marsalli said. "All I know is that these allegations are false and without grounds and we will vigorously defend against them."

Calvert also denied the charges.

"We don't see that we did any wrongdoing, and we plan on defending this completely," he said.

Both men referred further questions to the clinic's lawyer, Mark Hackett.

Hackett said the trial would probably take place in nine to 12 months, unless a judge dismisses it. He said he couldn't provide very many details because of the ongoing litigation.

While Hackett declined further comment, he did refer to a written response he filed to Petersen's complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

Hackett denied most of Petersen's charges in his response to the Oregon bureau. He stated that Petersen lied to Harris about leaving work early one day and then tried to cover it up, resulting in her firing. He said the health clinic and Harris "vehemently deny each and every one" of the sexual discrimination claims. Hackett also said Harris denied making derogatory remarks about women.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8554 Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8554
In announcing the settlement yesterday, the doughnut maker did not admit any wrongdoing, and terms of the out-of-court agreement are being kept confidential.

But the five ex-employees who filed the suit and their attorney said they were thrilled.

At a news conference, the former workers said they were glad they had stuck up for themselves, and encouraged others to do the same even if they don't speak English well or they otherwise feel helpless.

"Before, she is afraid. Today, she is not," said one of the plaintiffs, Maria De Jesus Deniz Murillo, through a translator.

The suit was filed in King County Superior Court in May 2003. Its claims centered around several different types of discrimination.

In addition to Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, it named as defendants ICON, an Illinois-based company, and its subsidiary, KremeWorks Washington the partnership operating Krispy Kreme outlets in this region.

Matthew Peterson, a supervisor in the Issaquah store, and another manager there, Humberto Esparza, were also named as defendants. An amended complaint filed last December dropped Esparza from the suit.

Most of the employees who sued began working at Krispy Kreme when its first Washington store opened in Issaquah on Oct. 30, 2001. It was an instant smash, breaking weekly sales records for the company.

The problems for Deniz Murillo named "Jane Doe" in the complaint began soon after she was hired. According to the lawsuit, Peterson, one of her supervisors, began demanding sexual favors.

When he threatened to fire Deniz Murillo, then 20 and a single mother, she succumbed to his demands, the lawsuit contended. All the sexual acts took place at the Issaquah store, the suit said.

Later, when Deniz Murillo declined to have sex with Peterson, "he subjected her to increased and unwarranted criticism or other adverse employment actions," the suit said.

In August 2002, Deniz Murillo stopped the sexual encounters for good. Soon after, pressure from Peterson forced her to quit, she later claimed.

The suit says Peterson also harassed another female worker, Margarita Salazar. On one occasion, in March 2002, he allegedly exposed himself to her. When she complained, the company took no action, the lawsuit said.

When two of the other plaintiffs, David Rico-Lopez and Ernesto Murillo, tried to speak up for their female co-workers, they were warned they had violated company rules, the suit said.

The suit also claimed both Rico-Lopez and Murillo were paid less than their white counterparts doing the same work.

Deniz Murillo, Salazar, Rico-Lopez and Murillo are all of Mexican descent. Most of them speak only halting English.

The fifth plaintiff, Victoria Rystad, is Spanish and Filipino.

Each, except Deniz Murillo, was fired.

Peterson and Esparza, both of whom no longer work at the Issaquah store, could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Gerard Centioli, KremeWorks' president and chief executive officer, declined comment. In previous interviews, he has vehemently denied the suit's claims and has said an investigation by a major Seattle law firm found nothing to substantiate them.

A company news release yesterday stated only that resolution had been reached on all the claims. The terms of the agreement are confidential, the release said.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8549 Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8549
Sexual harassment claims filed by men with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has grown from 9 percent of all charges in fiscal 1992 to 15 percent in 2003. Many of those claims involve male-on-male harassment; harassment of men by women is rarer, according to legal experts.

"There are more people complaining about it because there's more attention to it," says Caroline Wheeler, assistant general counsel with the EEOC. "It's often the men who are not gay who pick on someone. They pick on men who seem effeminate or not aggressive enough."

In recent years, major employers have faced lawsuits alleging same-sex harassment by men, with some settlements topping $1 million.

Among the EEOC cases:

Last year, Babies R Us agreed to pay $205,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by a male employee in New Jersey who said he was mocked and made the target of derogatory comments by other men.

Long Prairie Packing in Long Prairie, Minn., paid $1.9 million in 1999 to settle a class-action lawsuit by male meatpacking employees who said they were subjected to harassment and retaliation.

Burt Chevrolet and LGC Management, an auto chain in Colorado, paid $500,000 in 2000 to settle a claim by 10 former salesmen who said they were harassed by male managers. The salesmen said their genitals were grabbed, they were subjected to crude sex jokes and a manager exposed himself.
The issue has garnered more attention since the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that same-sex harassment by men may violate federal civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination. Before that, courts had been divided about the legal standing of such claims.

Since that ruling, federal officials say they have filed more same-sex harassment lawsuits and seen more claims -- more than 2,000 such EEOC claims a year, compared with fewer than 1,000 a year from fiscal 1990 to 1992.

The increase is attributed to the court ruling, a greater awareness by men of their workplace rights and the possibility that same-sex harassment is more prevalent.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8511 Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8511
Five female employees claim the restaurant's general manager harassed them with sexual propositions, groping and sexual assaults and said their complaints to the manager's superiors were ignored and they were retaliated against with reduced work hours.

The outlet is owned by The Bloomin' Apple, LLC and Heartland Apple, Inc.

"That Applebee's management appears to have permitted such egregious behavior by one of its general managers must be a matter of concern, and it's a flat-out violation of federal law," said John Rowe, Director of EEOC's Chicago office.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8490 Sun, 05 Sep 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8490
"These (teens) are not going to have a lot of work experience to guide them," said Lynn Bruner, regional director for the St. Louis office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has brought several such cases in the past few years.

"They're not going to know what is acceptable and unacceptable types of behavior," she said. "It's unlikely they will have a lot of information about what their legal workplace rights are."

A recent case was filed in St. Louis against Indianapolis-based Steak n Shake Co.

Amanda Nichols, now 20, worked for the diner chain in the St. Louis area three years ago.

What started as flirtatious comments turned vulgar, Nichols said. A touch here, a pinch there.

Then, after several months and multiple complaints to managers, she said, the harassing co-worker threatened to kill her if she told anyone he tried to force himself on her.

"Still being 17, I really was believing that these people had me in their best interests, and they didn't," she said of her managers. "Because of everything that happened, it absolutely makes me paranoid. I don't sit on my porch at night. I don't walk to my car by myself. I feel crazy saying it, but I'm absolutely convinced that somebody is following me."

Steak n Shake disputes the allegations and still employs the man at the center of Nichols' accusations.

Sex-harassment accusations by teens are on the rise in Denver, too, said Jeanette Leino, director for the EEOC's local office. However, no recent teen sexual harassment lawsuits have been filed.

"Although we haven't filed lawsuits, we have had cases where there are violations of the law but we've been able to settle them," she said.

The agency won't discuss claims unless they go to court.

The EEOC is tasked with enforcing U.S. harassment and discrimination laws, including those covering sex, age, race, national origin, religion and disabilities.

Of more than 80,000 complaints in fiscal 2003, the agency took 300 to court, 16 of which involved sexual harassment charges by workers in food service.

Most were teens.

The EEOC doesn't regularly track ages of people who file sexual harassment charges. But it is pursuing more cases.

More wind up in court

Of 13,566 sexual harassment charges filed in fiscal 2003, the EEOC determined 1,148 warranted a reasonable cause for action, and it took 117 cases to court.

Ten years earlier, 14,420 sexual harassment charges were filed, the EEOC determined reasonable cause for 520 and took 74 cases to court. The numbers don't include lawsuits brought through private attorneys.

The EEOC has no formula for when it files suit. Often it goes after cases it views to be the most severe, that have more than one alleged victim, or that may result in a policy change.

Teens seeking their first taste of the working world often bus tables, work cash registers or serve fancy coffee drinks. In fact, 44.6 percent of food service workers are 24 or younger, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. One in five is age 16 to 19.

Often that means teens themselves are answering to teens or young adults. Turnover is high, and many managers aren't properly trained to recognize or avoid discrimination, including sexual harassment, said Jennifer Kaplan, spokeswoman at EEOC's Washington headquarters.

Especially in a first or second job, teens may not recognize what's illegal because some of what's illegal isn't uncommon behavior at school, said Patricia McMahon in Denver's EEOC office, who visits area high schools to teach students about sexual harassment.

"Teenagers don't equate inappropriate sophomoric behavior that they encounter at school as sex harassment in the workplace, such as bra- snapping," she said.

Even when teens like Nichols recognize the harassment, they weigh it against other aspects of the job, such as making new friends and making money.

On the day Nichols interviewed at Steak n Shake, she remembers a man walked by who smiled and raised his eyebrows. A week or so later, that man a cook started pulling on her apron and grabbing her from behind, Nichols said. She asked him to stop and told him she had a boyfriend.

"I was annoyed then," she said. "I'm the kind of person who would put him in his place. He would just never back down."

Nichols said she complained multiple times to an assistant manager as well as his boss, but nothing changed.

Late one night, after three months on the job, the cook followed her to her car, she said.

He asked her out. She refused, and he pushed harder, blocking her access to the car.

"Basically he told me I couldn't go home until I gave him oral sex."

He pulled her apron off and unbuttoned her shirt. He twisted her wrist, she said.

"I was scared. I thought I was going to be murdered or raped at the time," Nichols said.

He exposed himself and rubbed against her, she said. She cried and almost threw up.

The cook pulled away, Nichols said, then threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the incident.

Nichols confided in one co-worker.

"If you go to the police, the chances (are he'd spend) a couple of days in jail then he's free? And he's pissed off? No way," Nichols said.

She put in her two weeks' notice, but before leaving the job, she had another confrontation with the cook. Again she complained to the assistant manager who, she said, told her the general manager believed it best Nichols leave, and she did.

That's when Nichols told her parents.

"A model employee"

The EEOC and Nichols are co-plaintiffs in the case against Steak n Shake. They're seeking lost wages, damages for emotional distress, and for the court to order the company to remedy a hostile environment, which may include policy changes.

Steak n Shake disputes the charges, said its attorney Bob Tomaso of St. Louis-based Blackwell Sanders.

"Steak n Shake approached the alleged harasser, talked with him, got his side of the story, reminded him of its policy, and Ms. Nichols never came back to work," he said. "He's still employed ... and he's a model employee."

Tomaso would not allow contact with the man.

He said Steak n Shake trains its workers to recognize and avoid sexual harassment and posts an 800 number in its restaurants for workers to call if they feel threatened, he said.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8470 Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8470 The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission joined 10 women as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Chicago against Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that the women were groped by male employees, subjected to obscene and racist jokes and shown pornographic pictures at restaurants in Matteson, Mattoon and Bloomington. The women said bosses laughed at them when they complained.

Some of the claims were investigated four years ago, Cracker Barrel spokeswoman Julie Davis said. The Tennessee-based company found the claims to be without merit.

Cracker Barrel "does not tolerate harassment, discrimination or retaliation against employees, suppliers or guests," Davis said.

The EEOC started investigating the claims after complaints were filed with the agency in 2000 and 2001. It filed the lawsuit after finding a "widespread and serious problem" with management not responding to complaints, EEOC attorney John Hendrickson said.

"This is a significant number of people that indicated there is a problem," Hendrickson said. "It's something that can be controlled and stopped by management. And when it's not stopped, it grows like a cancer."

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of compensation for the women, Hendrickson said. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8471 Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8471
Karen Kurek filed the suit against former municipal administrator Peter Brusco, Duffy and the township in 2002, alleging that Brusco had sexually harassed her by grabbing her in the neck and face repeatedly. She included Duffy and Monroe Township Solicitor Charles Fiore in the complaint, alleging that they did not take proper steps in handling her initial complaints against the administrator. Kurek then voluntarily dismissed the claim against Fiore.


The case was settled several weeks ago and Kurek reportedly received the pay-out this week.

Kurek, who served as Mayor Duffy's administrative secretary from 1999 to 2002, ended up on disability, claiming that the stresses of her work environment had caused her psychological trauma.

Meanwhile, Brusco was suspended for a three-week unpaid leave while township officials addressed the issue.

Now, two years later, this is one suit the township can close the lid on. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8472 Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8472
Two women, Marisol and Elizabeth Torres, claim Grgich made rude comments and groped them, forcing them to quit their jobs at Grgich Hills Winery. Another woman, former Grgich Hills bookkeeper Lidija Hudnell, is suing along with the two sisters, claiming she was fired in retaliation for bringing their complaints to Grgich and his daughter Violet Grgich, who is vice president of sales and marketing at the winery.

The sisters' most serious allegations are that they were groped by Grgich in 2002, when Marisol was 16 and Elizabeth was 18. The women say Grgich rubbed his hands on their buttocks and breasts, and also repeatedly forced his tongue in Marisol's mouth during the summer of 2001 while she worked as his housekeeper.

The vintner and the company deny any wrongdoing related to the women's claims. Grgich said in court documents he never touched them in a sexual manner.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8473 Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8473
The EEOC lawsuit claimed supervisors and other employees at a Lynwood, Calif., Jiffy Lube franchise operated by The Oil Shoppe Inc. created a hostile work environment by making explicit sexual remarks and other egregious comments to female employees, two of whom were teenagers.

One of the female employees also claimed she was fired when she filed a complaint with the company.

The alleged violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act are punishable by compensatory and punitive damages of up to $100,000 per victim for employers with more than 100 workers but fewer than 201.

As part of the settlement, Alamitos Enterprises, which has taken over the franchise from The Oil Shoppe, has also agreed to provide training to its employees and managers.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8475 Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8475
It could represent as many as 1.6 million current and former female employees of the retailing giant.

The suit alleges Wal-Mart created a system that frequently pays its female workers less than their male counterparts for comparable jobs and bypasses women for key promotions.

Wal-Mart, the nations largest private employer, sought to limit the scope of the lawsuit that was filed three years ago.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams told The Associated Press earlier Tuesday that the Bentonville, Ark.-based company will appeal the ruling and is confident that it does not discriminate against women employees.

No trial date was set.

U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins took nine months to decide whether to expand the lawsuit to include virtually all women who work or have worked at Wal-Marts 3,500 stories nationwide since 1998. His ruling makes the lawsuit the nations largest class action.

In morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange, Wal-Mart shares were down 97 cents, or 1.8 percent, at $53.96.

The ruling is pivotal because it gives lawyers for the women tremendous leverage as they pursue punitive damages, back pay and other compensation.

I think its a terrific victory for the women who work at Wal-Mart who have labored for years under working conditions where they have been told repeatedly they have been unsuitable for management and not suitable to make as much as men, said Joseph Sellers, one of the attorneys representing the women.

Betty Dukes, one of the women spearheading the suit, said she was paid just $8.44 per hour during her first nine years working at a variety of positions at Wal-Marts store in Pittsburg, Calif., while several men holding similar jobs but less seniority earned $9 per hour.

But Wal-Marts Williams said the ruling has nothing to do with the merits of the case.

Judge Jenkins is simply saying he thinks it meets the legal requirements necessary to move forward as a class action, Williams said.

In a hearing last September, company attorneys urged Jenkins to allow so-called mini-class action lawsuits targeting each outlet. Wal-Mart contends its stores operate with so much autonomy that they are like independent businesses with different management styles that affect the way women are paid and promoted.

Jenkins ruled that a 1964 congressional act passed during the civil rights movement prohibits sex discrimination and that giant corporations are not immune.

In addition, the judge said, the plaintiffs presented sufficient anecdotal evidence to warrant a class-action trial.

Jenkins decided that the plaintiffs present largely uncontested descriptive statistics which show that women working at Wal-Mart stores are paid less than men in every region, that pay disparities exist in most job categories, that the salary gap widens over time, that women take longer to enter management positions, and that the higher one looks in the organization the lower the percentage of women.

Wal-Mart contends the suit ignores the thousands of women who earn more than their male counterparts and doesnt consider factors that may make one job worth more pay than another.

The case already has generated 1.25 million pages of evidence and 200 sworn depositions.

The trial is expected to start with the women trying to demonstrate that Wal-Mart has a pattern of paying women lower wages and passing them over for promotions. Wal-Mart would then get a chance to dismantle that theory.

If a judge or jury found Wal-Mart did have a pattern of discrimination, a second phase of the trial would let the plaintiffs seek damages.

The Wal-Mart spokeswoman said the company is evaluating its employment practices.

Earlier this month Wal-Mart announced a new job classification and pay structure for hourly associates, Williams said. This new pay plan was developed with the assistance of third-party consultants and is designed to ensure internal equity and external competitiveness.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8474 Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8474
The lawyers representing the plaintiffs in a sexual-discrimination suit against the retailer have petitioned a federal court to allow some 700,000 women who worked for the company from 1996 to 2001 to be included in the suit, reports morningnewsbeat.com.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in San Francisco in 2001 and claims that at that time, women constituted 65 percent of Wal-Mart's hourly employees and just 33 percent of its managers. In addition, the suit alleges large pay disparities on the basis of gender.

]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/sexual_harassment Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/sexual_harassment Sexual Harassment Sexual harassment is any kind of sexual behavior that is unwelcome and/or inappropriate for the workplace. Sexual harassment can be in form of verbal abuse or harassment which can be derogatory comments or dirty jokes, visual harassment, physical harassment, and sexual favors.

Sexual harassment is defined as "unwelcomed sexual advances or conduct". Sexual harassment also includes animosity that is gender-based and a sexually charged work environment. In the work place, sexual harassment can come from the owner, supervisor, manager, lead person, foreperson, co-worker and/or customer.

Employees are protected under both state and federal law against workplace sexual harassment. Federal law remedies for workplace discrimination are based upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [FN1], which applies to employers with fifteen or more employees. People who work for smaller employers are usually protected by similar state anti-discrimination laws.

Under federal law, same-sex sexual harassment can support a claim against an employer. State laws may vary on the issue of same-sex harassment.

To bring an action for sexual harassment, the plaintiff must establish that:

The plaintiff found the conduct to be hostile, abusive or offensive;

A reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff would consider the conduct hostile, abusive or offensive.

If you have been a victim of sexual harassment our attorneys can help you, please fill out the form at the right for a free case evaluation by a qualified attorney.]]>