New York Sexual Harassment Lawyer Blog

Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn, has held that a female bus driver for the NCYTA can present her sexual harassment claims to a jury. The plaintiff, Felicia Bowen, alleges that her supervisor, Howard Cintrinbaum, among other things, licked his lips while looking at her, told her that they should “do it” and, when she refused to turn off her bus, reached over to do so himself, touching her breasts.

The company’s attorney sought to minimize Cintrinbaum’s conduct, claiming that looking the plaintiff up and down while licking his lips was “a neutral act. The company asked the court to deny Bowen the right to let a jury decide whether these acts amount to unlawful sexual harassment.

The court rejected the company’s argument and denied the motion, holding, “Lewd gestures and looks may alone be sufficient to create an atmosphere of sexual hostility. Here, those remarks and gestures were compounded by offensive touching.”

This case, Bowen v. MTA New York City Transit Authority, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136531 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2011), expands the protections that employees possess in the workplace, ensuring that women will not have to endure “lewd gestures and looks” as part of their job.

A sexual harassment claim was brought in New York County Supreme Court yesterday by eight employees of AVA Lounge at the Dream Hotel.

The owner and general manager are accused of subjecting the women to “Best Ass” contests and referring to them as “Double Ds” and “Thighs” instead of their names.

Mark Stumer, a lawyer for the women said that the supervisors basically harassed each woman that worked there, and that it was “constant, pervasive, and everyday.” Apparently, the environment at the AVA Lounge was so barbaric that the manager would announce over two-way radio that people were having sex in the building across the street from the hotel. According to the complaint, managers would brag about their sexual escapades to the staff including videotaping a sexual act in the office and snorting cocaine off the naked body of an employee.

One employee, Christine Anderson, alleged in the complaint that she was wrongfully accused of stealing and then fired for complaining about this behavior.

Sexual harassment and retaliation are prohibited by the New York City Human Rights Law and should not be not be tolerated. If you feel that you may be the victim of sexual harassment or retaliation in the workplace, contact Schwartz & Perry.

The entire article is available from NYDailyNews.com

The laws against sexual harassment apply equally to men and women. Reverse sexual harassment refers to a the sexual harassment of a male by a female. Sexual harassment is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the New York State and New York City Laws.

In a recent sexual harassment lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court, a male dog trainer is suing his female boss, a 44-year old New York socialite. He claims he was fired for refusing to have sex with her.

According to the New York Post, dog trainer Wesley Artope claims that his female boss, a former model, came on to him many times while he was training her dogs at her Westchester County home. Artope, a married father-of-four, claims that his boss repeatedly beckoned him to her bedroom where she would try to tempt him into having sex with her by lying on the bed in skimpy shorts or naked under a robe. In an interview with the New York Post, Artope further alleges “She did things that were inappropriate. She would call me into her bedroom several times, and she would basically flash me.”

The lawsuit alleges that she “was attracted to him and wanted to engage in a sexual relationship with him.” Further, Artope alleges that on one occasion his boss grabbed Artope’s hand and told him she wanted to have sex with him, that her husband was sexually inept.

Artope continually refused her advances and claims that she became angry. She began criticizing his work and then banned him from the home. Artope had worked for this employer since September 2008 and said he was fired in July 2009 after he complained about the hostility and reported the sexual harassment to the estate manager.

More information can be found in the New York Post.

Recently the Central Park Boathouse, a landmark in Manhattan since the 1950's, has been the subject of several sexual harassment and other related discrimination claims against them.

Approximately six former and current employees have made claims that supervisors at the restaurant routinely subjected them to sexual harassment by way of inappropriate comments, touching and conversation in the workplace. These employees field a complaint with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as a result of this alleged conduct in the workplace.

As of now Boathouse management has not said much. Restaurant spokesman Joseph O’Donnell stated that, “all employees are aware of the Boathouse’s zero tolerance policy concerning sexual harassment.”

The complaints by employees of the Boathouse have sparked reaction from New York City Public Advocate Bill De Blasio, who is now urging the Parks Commissioner, Adrian Benepe to revoke the contract to operate the restaurant and boating concession at Central Park. De Blasio commented, “it doesn’t fit the values of this city and it violates the law.”

Parks Department spokeswoman Vicki Karp has responded by stating that the agency takes sexual harassment allegations very seriously and cares deeply about labor standards, promising that action will be taken in any and all situations that warrant scrutiny.

Regardless of the outcome of these claims, it will be interesting to see how these negative reports will affect business for the Boathouse in the coming weeks. It will also be very significant if actions are ultimately taken by New York City officials to cease operations of the restaurant due to discrimination claims.

A male New York City Police Department sergeant filed a sexual harassment complaint against his male boss after years of unwanted advances from the commanding officer. The sergeant was “fed up” with the unwanted advances and finally decided to take action, filing a formal complaint with the NYPD Office of Equal Employment Opportunity.

The sergeant's boss would allegedly commenting on “how sexy” he looked and that he was subjected to unwanted touching by his boss during patrols.

Other members of the department would make jokes about these types of instances, even commenting that the plaintiff should “Take one for the team.” It was only last month, after plaintiff revealed the conduct to two lieutenants who urged him to report the misconduct to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, that he finally reported the misconduct.

There is a stigma attached to male on male sexual harassment, as evidenced by some of the behavior exhibited by plaintiff's command in this case. As a result of this pressure from co-workers and others, many are reluctant to come forward and feel they do not fit into the traditional mold of what constitutes sexual harassment, in which a male employer is making unwanted sexual advances towards a female employee. Sexual Harassment has no rigid form, and, in fact, there is no ‘typical’ mold that excludes certain types of people from experiencing this unwelcome conduct.

Many individuals are victimized by sexual harassment in the workplace but are reluctant to express this, as there are still those who do not view male on male harassment as an actual problem. Male on male sexual harassment is a valid claim and is prohibited by the New York City Human Rights Law.

A former employee of the television channel BET is suing for sexual harassment in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County.

The suit filed by Tameika Dorman claims she was sexually harassed by a cameraman who made comments about her body and “grabbed his crotch” and moaned when Dorman was on camera.

When Dorman complained to her supervisor and said she would not work with that cameraman again, the suit alleges that nothing was done in response and that despite her protests, she was, in fact, assigned to work with him again.

Dorman also complained to Human Resources and, after an investigation Dorman was fired at a time when she was also five months pregnant.

Sexual harassment and retaliation are prohibited by the New York City Human Rights Law and should not be not be tolerated. If you feel that you may be the victim of sexual harassment or retaliation in the workplace, contact Schwartz & Perry.

A sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit has been brought against fashion designer Marc Jacobs' company in New York City. Patrice Lataillade states that her former supervisor created a hostile work environment by “displaying gay pornography in the office and requiring employees to look at it.” Further, the complaint states that this supervisor allegedly disseminated a book, which included photos of Marc Jacobs’ staff in sexual positions and required employees to "pole dance."

According to the complaint, after Lataillade complained via e-mail, she was fired less than a week later with the perpetrator allegedly telling other employees that he "takes credit" for her termination. Lataillade was employed from May 1996 to September 7, 2010, and throughout her 14 years of service, Lataillade claims she received consistently outstanding reviews as well as bonuses and promotions.

While Marc Jacobs' company drafted a sexual harassment policy in January 2010, it was not disseminated by Human Resources, and nothing was done to reprimand the perpetrator.

More about this case as available here.

Daniel Papelino was expelled from a New York pharmacy college after he disclosed that he was sexually harassed to Albert White, the school’s associate dean of student affairs. Papelino alleged that Deanna Nowak, his Chemistry professor, was overly flirtatious and made unwanted sexual advances towards Papelino in her office and even offered to award him extra points on his exam in exchange for sexual favors.

Not long after Papelino complained to Dean White of the sexual harassment, Nowak was charged with spearheading an investigation to determine whether Papelino and his two roommates had cheated on exams. All three students were found guilty of cheating and Papelino was expelled. Papelino brought a sexual harassment claim against the school after a state court found that there was no evidence that Papelino had cheated on any exam. Papelino and his roommates sued the school for retaliation, sexual harassment and breach of contract. These lawsuits were dismissed by the District Court, however Papelino appealed.

The Second Circuit panel found that Dean White did not take Papelino’s sexual harassment allegation seriously and did nothing to investigate the claim. As a result, the panel reinstated Papelino’s claim of sexual harassment against the school.

For more information, see http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/26/33654.htm

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission won a $1.26 million dollar verdict in a sexual harassment case against Paul’s Big M grocery store after proving 10 years of misconduct by the a former general manager during a two-week trial.

The lawsuit centered around a class of female employees, several of whom were high school teenagers, at the upstate New York grocery store, according to the EEOC press release. The award of $1,260,080 was comprised of $1.25 million in punitive damages and $10,080 in compensatory damages.

The offending manager, allegedly repeatedly sexually harassed females at his store until he was fired in 2010, even after pleading guilty to criminal charges of harassment in 2008, according to the EEOC. The EEOC claimed the sexual conduct included proposing sexual encounters with the mother of a teenage cashier, putting his tongue in a teenage cashier’s mouth, and the grabbing and touching of female employees.

According to the EEOC, although complaints were made about the harassment, the working environment continued without remedy, forcing some female employees to quit. The EEOC stated that the verdict is a strong message to employers to ensure non-discriminatory working conditions, especially where teenagers are involved.

More information is available here.

The New York Jets and former Quarterback Brett Farve are facing new sexual harassment allegations according to a law suit filed by two team employees in New York Supreme Court last week.

Farve had been investigated by the NFL over the last several months surrounding claims that he sent sexually explicit photos to another former team employee, Jenn Sterger. Sterger did not bring any lawsuit as of yet, however, Farve conduct was question by the league for violating its code of conduct. Farve was not fined or suspended for this conduct, but was fined $50,000 by the league for failing to cooperate with its investigation.

The present allegations claim that Farve, while a Jets employee in 2008, sent text message from his phone to two Jets team masseurs. The messages allegedly include Farve’s offers to the employees to pursue an inappropriate relationship with him. Additionally, there are allegations that before this law suit was filed, another Jets employee, who supervised the team’s masseurs, Lisa Ripi, told the two Plaintiffs to “keep your mouth shut” among other threats.

The New York Jets, throughout this season, have been faced with a number of these startling allegations. In addition to the Farve incidents, a reporter for a Spanish television station claimed that she was made to feel uncomfortable and the object of sexually inappropriate behavior by the players while the reporter was visiting the team’s practice facilities earlier this season.

Three female employees of a well-known New York city area doctor have accused him of sexual harassment and gender discrimination. The allegations against the doctor included claims that he inappropriately touched several of his female employees and sent sexually explicit text messages. Contributing to the hostile work environment that was created, was the claim that the doctor would regularly expose himself to the three women.

The laws protecting women in the workplace from sexual harassment in New York clearly prohibit the type of conduct that is alleged to have occurred over a two year period. The three women initially were afraid to complain because they did not want to lose their jobs, which is not an uncommon fear in cases of sexual harassment. What employees need to be aware of, however, is that there are strong laws that prohibit retaliation against an employee who makes a complaint of discrimination or harassment.

When the women finally protested the doctor’s sexually harassing conduct, they were terminated allegedly in retaliation for their protests.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has reported that a major construction company has settled a sexual harassment lawsuit for $125,000

According to the EEOC's claims, female employees were subjected "to a sexually hostile work environment which included telling stories of sexual exploits, derogatory remarks about females, inappropriate sexual comments and engaging in unwelcome touching of a sexual nature."

Besides the monetary relief, the company has agreed to revise its sexual harassment policy and to provide training to its employees and staff.

EEOC Regional Attorney Robert Weisberg stated that, “Employers have an obligation under federal law to provide all of their employees with a workplace free from such misconduct.”

More information regarding this issue can be found here.

Terre Haut-Sidal Inc., the owner of several fast food restaurants, will pay $150,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the EEOC. In addition to monetary damages, Sidal was required to enter into a five-year consent decree according to which Sidal is to train his employees on sexual harassment avoidance and to monitor its facilities to make sure that harassing behavior does not occur.

The EEOC charged that at least one former manager at a Terre Haut fast food restaurant violated federal laws by subjecting teenage female employees to unwelcome sexual comments, sexual advances, sexual grouping and sexual assault.

A recent New York Times article was published detailing The Chicago Tribune as “frat house” of lurid and profane behavior in the workplace.

The article gives anecdotes from many aggrieved former employees who were victims of the company’s work environment. It is reported that the current CEO of the company, had amended the employee handbook to loosen the definition of harassment in the work place.

These issues are very significant as sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination are widely prevalent in many organizations, in many industries.

The article can be found here.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) will secure a settlement on behalf of Ora L. Borrell for the sexual harassment and subsequent retaliation she endured during her employment with Bardon, Inc.

Incidents of sexual harassment included public urination by other employees in her presence, explicit sexual comments and requests, and touching and grabbing against her will. Borrell was eventually terminated by the company in retaliation for her complaints.

This case is a further demonstration of the prevalence of sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.

Additional information regarding this matter can be found here.

The City of New York City will pay a total of $300,000 to two police officers settling a sexual harassment lawsuit filed in connection with their claims of sexual harassment by a male supervisor. An attorney for the Plaintiffs stated, "Although our clients are satisfied that the litigation is over, it is further proof that the once-silent issue of same-sex harassment is on the rise."

The perpetrator of the harassment retired from the New York Police Department following a department trial in which he was found guilty of gesturing toward the officers in sexually suggestive ways and simulating a sexual act in their presence.

Additional information can be found here.

The scope of an employer’s liability has recently and dramatically increased in order to protect sexually harassed employees. Holdings in the New York federal district court cases Padmore v. LC Play, Inc., Guzman v. Macy’s Retail and Zakrzewska v. The New School are substantially broadening employer liability.

Generally stated, the aforementioned cases adopt the following changes to the current New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Previously, employers could escape liability by asserting the defense that the employee unreasonably failed to utilize an employer’s preventative or corrective anti-discrimination/harassment procedure. This defense, called “Faragher-Ellerth”, will no longer be accepted. Instead, regardless of an employee’s use of their employer’s complaint procedure, employers are now strictly liable for any sexual harassment committed by their supervisors.

In addition to the inflating scope of the NYCHRL, the courts also expanded its reach. Now, employers who do not maintain offices may still be potentially liable to both the NYCHRL and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), if they regularly conduct business in New York. Only one act of discrimination or harassment, in New York, is necessary to trigger the NYCHRL or NYSHRL, even if the impact is generally felt outside New York

The New York City Police Department was recently faced with a reminder that a police precinct is a work environment just like any other - open to potential misconduct if left unwatched. The NYPD has been served with a $40 million lawsuit by a former officer accusing the institution of sexual harassment. Despite having been on the job for over 17 years as a cop, being the lone female (and lesbian) officer in the 49th Precinct left Arlene Ramery in an atmosphere that was “permeated with ‘sexism’ and ‘frat boy’ type behavior.” Standing up for women on the job, Ramery claims to have an exemplary record and feels betrayed by the NYPD after her years of service. This is the not the only sexual harassment claim filed against the NYPD of late. The so-called ‘Twilight’ case is currently being investigated by the EEOC and an internal probe by the department has been launched

If New York’s Finest hope to keep female recruitment up, precincts should take efforts to monitor staff behavior and ensure safety in the work environment.

More information can be found here.

The trial in the sexual harassment and retaliation case brought by former New York 1 News anchor Adele Sammarco has begun in Federal Court in Brooklyn. Ms. Sammarco claims that she was subjected to a hostile, sexually charged environment in which the male employees maintained a "boys's club" at the expense of the female employees.

Ms. Sammarco also claims that she was terminated after she had complained about the sexual conduct of a co-worker. The trial has just begun and individuals have begun to take the stand and testify. We hope to report on the outcome of this case as it moves forward.

Additional information can be found at http://www.1010wins.com/Fmr--NY1-Reporter-Takes-Stand-in-Harassment-Lawsui/6804419

The family of a deceased construction worker has decided to continue bringing a $20 million sexual harassment against her former employers, JP Morgan Chase, Plaza Construction and Total Safety Consulting, failed to respond to her numerous complaints of harassment on the job. The woman was subjected to harassment on the job from 2007 onward, when an elevator operator began to paw her and proposition her. When she repeatedly rejected the elevator operator, he turned nasty telling her that “This is a man’s world, not a place for women to work.”

Women are a rarity in construction, making up only one in every ten employees. After complaining numerous times to her supervisors, the woman was told that if the operator was disciplined, his union would make waves. Eventually she was removed from the job only 2 months after beginning, which resulted in depression so severe that a workman’s compensation judge ruled it a work injury.

Tragically, the woman died in a house fire in October 2009. Her two daughters have continued the lawsuit in her name to continue her legacy of fighting for what she believed in.

Three former sous chefs have filed suit against a well known New York City Restaurant, alleging that the supervising chef hit them with pots and pans, touched them inappropriately, and made sexually explicit comments about their family members.

The employees claim that management did nothing to stop the harassing behavior despite their awareness of the situation. They have brought a claim in the Manhattan Supreme Court seeking $15 million in damages.

A female employee has sued her former employer, a major record label, in Manhattan Federal Court, after filing with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), for sexual harassment and retaliation. The claims center on the employee being subjected to a hostile work environment in which her breasts were ogled and comments of a sexual nature were made. The employee claims that when she complained about this treatment, she was fired only two months later.

The EEOC has filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against an upscale steakhouse in New York City. It is alleged that male management groped and made sexual comments to other male employees. After the victims of the harassment complained about the unwelcome sexual behavior, management retaliated by assigning the complainants “less desirable” work. Subsequently, the victims were terminated.

In commenting on the case, EEOC New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis Jr. stated, “EEOC is determined to stop sexual harassment whether faced by men or women.” The case has been filed in the U.S. District in the Southern District of New York. The EEOC's press release can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-31-09.cfm.

A former hotel clerk who claims she was fired because she was not pretty enough is bring suit against a major hotel chain. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is allowing the woman to sue Heartland Inns of America, who she claims fired her due to her “tomboy” appearance.

The former employee received positive reviews and two raises while employed by the hotel, but was criticized for wearing loose fitting clothes and not wearing make up. After she was fired, the hotel began videotaping potential front desk employees so officials could see how they looked before hiring them. The court stated that companies cannot make employment decisions based on sex stereotypes, and that to fire an employee for failing to wear makeup and dresses would be sexual discrimination.

In Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, a 30 year old female plaintiff brought a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act claiming that her termination was in retaliation for reporting, in the employer’s internal investigation, that the Employee Relations Director had sexually harassed her. The employer’s proffered legitimate non discriminatory reason for Crawford’s termination was that she embezzled funds.

Title VII’s opposition clause makes it unlawful "for an employer to discriminate against any ... employe[e]" who (1) "has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter." However, Title VII does not define the term “oppose.” The Supreme Court, utilizing the plain meaning of “oppose”, held that the statute’s opposition clause also extends protection to an employee that speaks out about discrimination not on their own accord but at the behest of their employer during the course of an internal investigation.

The Court reasoned that the meaning of the term "oppose" goes beyond "active, consistent" behavior in ordinary discourse, to include a person that has taken no action except for the act of disclosing the discrimination. Thus, a person can "oppose" discrimination merely by responding to someone else's questions just as surely as actively complaining of discrimination.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a federal lawsuit in the southern District of Ohio against New York based JP-Morgan Chase Bank alleging the bank sexually discriminated against women and fired one after she complained about their practices at an office in Colombus, Ohio.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, Aimee Doneyhue was terminated from her job in 2007 in retaliation for complaining about sexually discriminatory practices to management because of the “sexually hostile work environment which was created, fostered, and maintained by male supervisors.” The complaint also alleges that JP-Morgan did not take proper action to correct the harassment and made it much more difficult for women to earn commission and bonuses.

The complaint seeks back pay, punitive damages, and an end to all discriminatory practices on the basis of gender. JP-Morgan spokesperson declined to comment.

A former employee at the Verizon facility in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania alleged that her employment was terminated after she complained of discrimination. The former employee complained about sexually offensive graffiti and materials in Verizon work areas and trucks. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explained that after complaining to management, the employee was subjected to retaliatory harassment, including the hanging of a plastic rat from the ceiling. The EEOC went on to charge that Verizon management knew of the harassment and did nothing to stop it. Instead, the employee was fired for her complaints.

Verizon maintains that an investigation took place but nothing was discovered to substantiate the allegations. Verizon further contended that the company acted appropriately and the size of the settlement recognized that the company did nothing wrong. Verizon has agreed to provide training to its employees at the Bryn Mawr facility on TitleVII of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it illegal to retaliate against someone who complains about employment discrimination.

On June 11, 2009 The EEOC (U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission) entered into an agreement with prominent national retailer Dillard’s Inc., in settlement of a lawsuit regarding incidents of sexual harassment in violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act. As part of the agreement, Dillards is to pay $11,000 in damages to the victims of sexual harassment as well as reform their workplace policies to comply with Title IV.

While the media typically depicts sexual harassment victims as females, males also fall victim to sexual harassment in the workplace. The Dillard’s case involved male on male sexual harassment at a Dillard’s in Florida. According to the EEOC, the Dillard’s store at the Fashion Square Mall in Orlando permitted a sexually hostile work environment for its employees. The specific incident involved a male supervisor that engaged in verbal as well as physical sexual harassment of two Dillard’s employees, a male sales associate and a male dockworker. The supervisor exposed himself to the employees, sexually propositioned them, and made explicit sexual and derogatory comments to them. While both men complained about the foregoing conduct, Dillard’s took no steps to resolve it.

The suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Civil Action No. 6:07-cv-1496-PCF-KRS) in September 2007. The terms of the settlement provide that in addition to paying the victims $110,000, the Dillard’s store will provide its staff with booklets describing its anti sexual harassment and retaliation policies, conduct training for all employees on the matter, and train employees that will specifically be responsible for investigating sexual harassment complaints. Furthermore, Dillard’s will submit to monitoring by the EEOC for the next three years, and will post a notice about the resolution of this case.

The EEOC recently stated that employers ought to be more vigilant in ensuring that male employees are not being subjected to working in sexually hostile environments since sexual harassment cases involving male victims have increased sharply over the past decade.

An employee of a luxury goods company has made allegations against the company’s CEO, claiming that he sexually harassed her. The employee alleges that the sexual harassment began in September 2004. The conduct included trying to get her to perform sexual acts, rearranging her schedule so that she was forced to work with him, and repeatedly grabbing her. The suit seeks unspecified damages of $80 Million dollars.

A woman has sued ABC and ‘Lost’ actor Henry Ian Cusick claiming that the actor sexually harassed her, and that ABC fired her in retaliation after she complained. The lawsuit claims that Cusick, who stars as Desmond Hume on ‘Lost,’ fondled the woman’s buttocks and breasts, and kissed her on the lips in October 2007. The woman alleges that when she reported the incident to her supervisor, she was told to avoid Cusick, and then was fired 12 days later. She had worked for ABC since 1997. The complaint did not specify the amount of damages the woman is seeking.

The Waterford Township of Michigan has settled a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a former Waterford Police Department clerk against the township and its police department. Penny Jo Dye alleged that she was subject to degrading and inflamed comments made about her breasts and tight pants after she gave statements backing a sexual harassment claim brought by a co-worker against the police department. After Dye filed a complaint with the township’s Fiscal and Human Resources Department about sexual harassment, she alleged that the township refused to interfere and instead, retaliated against her. The retaliatory conduct included isolating Dye by taking her job responsibilities away from her, withholding training and commencing unwarranted internal investigations to discipline her. Dye was ultimately terminated from her position.

The Township agreed to settle her case for $325,000 in exchange for dismissing the lawsuit. Under the settlement agreement, Dye is prohibited from applying to future employment opportunities with the Waterford Township.

According to a recent article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a male registered nurse, Roy E. Dreshman, Jr., has filed a claim against his former employer, Henry Clay Villa, in the United States District Court in Pittsburgh for sexual harassment, gender discrimination and age discrimination. In the complaint, Dreshman alleges that soon after two of his co-workers recognized him to be a former stripper, some employees began to pass around photographs of him as a dancer, solicited lap dances, asked him to perform at bachelorette parties and groped him. One employee even decorated her office with a poster of Dreshman as a male stripper. Residents of the nursing home also participated in discriminatory conduct against Dreshman by telling him, “Oh, my gosh, you are one of them go-go boys,” and calling him a “hootchie-kootchie dancer.”

Dreshman also alleges that the nursing home discriminated against him based on his gender and age by favoring female nurses for full-time positions over male nurses. Dreshman was told that he was a "pretty boy" and that "males did not ‘belong’ in the nursing field.” In the complaint, he also alleges that instead of launching an investigation after receiving his complaint, the management of the nursing home retaliated against him, leading to his ultimate termination.

In a complaint filed in September 2007 with the New York State Division of Human Rights, a former sheriff’s confidential executive assistant in Tompkins County claimed she was sexually harassed and subjected to gender discrimination by the Sheriff over a period of two years and then was retaliated against after complaining about the alleged behavior. Robin Korherr claims the sexual harassment began in 2005 while she was going through a divorce. Tompkins County Sheriff Peter Meskill allegedly tried to grope and kiss Korherr on several occasions. Korherr also alleges that Meskill often called her after he had been drinking to tell her how beautiful she was.

Korherr says she asked her boss several times to rectify the situation and that Meskill would initially apologize, but then become aggressive in his harassment again. In early 2007, Meskill took away her privileges and enforced new rules which made it impossible for Korherr to work. Korherr believes that these actions were retaliation against her for refusing to sleep with Meskill. In late 2007, Korherr left the job to work for the New York State Office of Homeland Security.

On March 26, 2009, the New York State Division of Human Rights found probable cause to hear Korherr’s case. Korherr provided testimony for her case during a hearing on April 23, 2009 after two hours of private negotiations in an attempt to reach a settlement. Meskill is expected to testify at a later date.

On April 13, 2009, Federal District Court Judge, Lawrence O. Anderson, entered a judgement of over $267,000 as well as significant injunctive relief in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in an employment discrimination lawsuit against Sunfire Glass Inc. The lawsuit charged that Sunfire’s owner, Paul McBride, subjected a class of female employees to severe physical and verbal sexual harassment in violation of Federal law.

Judge Anderson found that McBride sexually harassed two female glassblowers by touching the women on their breasts and between their legs, hitting the women on the buttocks, making obscene gestures and verbally harassing the women by talking about their bodies and using vulgar language. The two women, Tineke Meyer and Karina Mercado, complained repeatedly to management, but no action was taken to stop the sexual harassment. As a result of the severe abuse, the women were left no choice but to resign.

In addition to the monetary damages awarded, Judge Anderson also ordered Sunfire enjoined from engaging in sex discrimination and ordered the company to train employees on employment discrimination and sexual harassment, to post notices about sex discrimination and to create anti-discrimination policies and procedures.

Without the courage of these two women to stand up for themselves, the heinous conduct at Sunfire would not have been exposed. Perhaps their courage will stand as an example, and empower people to stand up for themselves, and for each other when confronted with employment discrimination or sexual harassment.

Two New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) employees recently filed a troubling sex discrimination lawsuit. According to a recent article in the New York Daily News, the two female employees, Lillian Padilla and Magda Rodriguez, claimed they are subjected to entirely different conditions than their male counterparts. The allegations state that the women are consistently given the hardest and dirtiest jobs, are victimized by a barrage of threats and insults, and are denied showers or changing rooms after spending hours working in sewage. The complaint further alleges that the women, both of whom are lesbians, are subjected to derogatory slurs attacking their sexual orientation, and have also been unwillingly exposed to pornographic materials.

According to the complaint, this is not the first instance of sex discrimination committed by the DEP. The women claim that other female employees have left the company because of similar treatment, causing a shocking disparity in the male to female ratio at the DEP, with only five female laborers out of the 426 currently employed. Furthermore, when attempting to assert their rights, the female employees were threatened by management and continued to receive harsh treatment. However, despite these acts, all Padilla and Rodriguez are seeking is the same treatment as their male co-workers. Says Rodriguez, “I just want the policies changed so that women have equal rights. I have no shower. She has no shower. We work in sewage. That’s what we do all day.” The DEP is said to be currently investigating the claim.

Elizabeth Williams, a Major Gifts Officer for Binghamton University athletics, filed a sexual harassment complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on March 17, 2009. According to a recent New York Times article, the complaint alleged that there were “egregious acts of sexual misconduct” committed by Jason Siegel, the Senior Associate Athletic Director, and Chris Lewis, the Assistant Athletic Director for Development. Williams claims that Siegel had physically and verbally harassed her since she started working with the university’s athletics department on January 5, 2009.

In one incident, Williams claims that Lewis told her that she needed to entertain a donor at a Binghamton game because he liked “chesty, loudmothed women.” Williams also alleges that one night, at a dinner with major donors, Siegel and Lewis speculated on her bra size, and suggested that she strip for a donor who was going to have a bachelor party. Among other things, Williams said that Siegel had grabbed her breasts, and told her that she was “not hired to have opinions," but rather to "look good and flirt with donors." Williams said that she reported the sexual harassment to the school over a month ago, but nothing has been done, and her role has since been diminished.

Williams claims that she has been removed from her office, had the pass code to her voicemail changed and been stripped of nearly all of her responsibilities. Binghamton’s Athletic Director, Joel Thirer, said that he had “no knowledge and no comment” regarding the complaint. The EEOC has not yet reviewed the complaint.

Burger King Corp. settled a sexual harassment lawsuit with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and will pay $85,000 to a North Carolina woman who was harassed by her store manager. The EEOC stated that Kathleen Joyner was sexually harassed by her general manager from December 2007 to March 2008. Ms. Joyner was 18-years-old at the time the alleged harassment took place.

According to the complaint, Ms. Joyner had complained to her assistant managers, but they failed to take any action to resolve the issue. As part of the settlement, Burger King Corp. is required to provide anti-harassment training to all managers and shift coordinators in its Clemmons and Winston-Salem, North Carolina restaurants. Ms. Joyner’s general manager was transferred to the Winston-Salem restaurant. In addition, all Burger King Corp. restaurants are required to review the anti-sexual harassment policies with all newly hired employees.

On December 3, 2008, a jury awarded Juan I. Valera $420,000 for being subjected to a hostile work environment. Valera, an employee of Costco for 20 years, is gay and is also HIV-positive. Valera’s attorney alleged that a Costco General Manager casually used the word “queer” around Valera, which caused him to take a leave of absence. To rectify the situation, Valera asked the Assistant General Manager to protect him from insensitive remarks. The following day, Valera was demoted and received a pay cut.

A report on MSNBC.com noted that, in February 2009, Valera is suing Costco again. Valera alleges in his new Los Angeles Superior Court complaint that the company’s failure to reinstate him to his old position is an act of retaliation that stems from both the previous jury award and his sexual orientation.

According to a recent article in The New York Times, sexual harassment exists in one of New York City’s most prominent restaurants. The article describes the sexual harassment of Martha Nyakin Gatkouth, an émigré from Ethiopia, while she worked as the hostess at Tavern on the Green, one of the most famous restaurants in New York City.

“It was a daily thing,” she states. “I felt scared, terrified, embarrassed, sad.” After having her case dropped by the Manhattan District Attorney, Gatkouth went to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which opened an investigation. Although other employees admitted to being sexually harassed, none were willing to come forward for fear of workplace retaliation.

The New York Law Journal recently reported that a prominent New York law firm has filed a countersuit against a former Partner. The firm accuses the former Partner, who had originally filed a defamation suit against the firm, of “extremely inappropriate personal conduct,” claiming he had a “pattern of [making] suggestive comments, sexual innuendo, sexual propositions, sexually-oriented teasing, gender-specific jokes and obscene gestures” to other employees.

This month, Anucha Browne Sanders and Madison Square Garden settled Sanders’ sexual harassment suit for $11.5 million. This development comes some two months after Sanders was awarded $11.6 million in punitive damages by a New York federal jury.

Before the settlement, the case was to enter into another damages phase where Judge Gerard E. Lynch was to hear arguments and decide on the outstanding question of Sanders’ compensatory damages, which would include back pay. This additional damages phase would potentially have added millions to the jury’s verdict.

Even though the Sanders case has been settled, Madison Square Garden has not resolved all of the sexual harassment claims made against it. Former New York Rangers cheerleader Courtney Prince filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Madison Square Garden in New York federal court in 2004.

It is unclear what effect Sanders’ trial and subsequent settlement will have on the Prince matter. Sanders’ case may have made it more difficult for the plaintiffs and defendants in the Prince case to arrive at an agreement. In the wake of the $11.5 million settlement, the stakes are considerably higher and Madison Square Garden had previously rejected the recommendation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to settle the matter for about $800,000.