New York Sexual Harassment Lawyer Blog

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.

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.

Recently, Hewlett-Packard made headlines due to the company's investigation into the allegedly sexually inappropriate conduct of its former Chief Executive Officer, Mark Hurd. After an investigation, Hurd resigned and received a severance payment in accordance with the terms of his employment agreement. Hurd was subsequently hired by Silicon Valley rival, Oracle, for a top leadership position in that company.

However, some Hewlett-Packard shareholders have now brought suit against the company claiming that the corporate board "did not fulfill their duties in the ouster [of Hurd] and severance agreement." At the moment, the documents relating to these suits are not public, but they seek information regarding the Board's inquiry into the sexual harassment allegations against Hurd.

These law suits are significant in that they can have an impact regarding the liability of a corporation as well as its Board of Directors in terms of their handling of sexual harassment and discrimination claims against employees.

The full text of the Forbes Magazine article 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

Hope Dendy, a New York City resident, is suing the City for sexual harassment by her boss, a longtime parks supervisor. She began working for the Parks Department under a job training program designed to help people gain training for permanent jobs. After being sent to the wrong location on her first day, Dendy’s boss tightly hugged her and kissed her on the cheek.

Dendy, hopes the lawsuit will prevent this type of harassment from happening to other women on public assistance who are looking for jobs.

The complete article can be found here.

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 Wall Street Journal reports that since the start of the recession, a growing number of sexual harassment complaints have stemmed from men. Men filed 16.4% of all sexual harassment claims, or 2,094 claims, in fiscal 2009; this was an increase from 15.4% or 1,869 claims in fiscal 2006. Employment lawyers say that the subject of claims have increasingly been “locker room” type behavior which includes vulgar comments and horseplay with sexual connotations.

The increase in male sexual harassment claims coincides with a recession which has affected men more than women. Claims filed by men rose more in some states with higher than average unemployment rates. In states such as Michigan, which was dramatically affected by the recession, claims filed by men increased to 26.6% in 2009 from 16.6% in 2007. California also saw a dramatic increase over the same period of time.

A female psychologist in Long Island, New York has been sued by her former office manager for sexual harassment. The complaint filed in Federal Court in the Eastern District of New York states that the therapist subjected her female office manager to a hostile environment as a result of the pervasive sexually charged comments made to her during her employment.

This case reiterates the fact that sexual harassment need not be perpetrated upon the opposite gender, rather a man can sexually harass another male, and a female can sexually harass another female.

The New York Post is reporting that a former waitress at a New York area gentleman’s club filed a lawsuit claiming she was fired because she complained about sexual harassment by both male and female supervisors.

The former Penthouse Executive Club cocktail waitress alleges that a female general manager touched her on her legs and thighs in a sexual manner. The plaintiff also alleges that the manager offered to engage in sexual relations with her in front of customers for a fee.

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.

Forbes Magazine’s recent piece, “The ‘new’ sexual harassment is more subtle,” highlights the transformation in workplace relationships has occurred between co-workers over the last couple of years.

It is now uncommon for an employee’s supervisor to be so blatant in their sexual advances. No longer are bosses threatening to fire a subordinate for not agreeing to sleep with them. No longer do the situations play out as they did in the past: ‘Sleep with me if you want the promotion.’

On the contrary, today’s version of sexual harassment can be much more discreet and less obvious. Much of the problems have been traced to new technology, such as text messages, social-networking sites, and email. David Bowman, an employment lawyer at the Philadelphia office of Morgan, Lewis & Bockus, attributes the surge in - at the workplace to the difference in nature between personal interactions. “When you talk in person, 80 percent of what you say is in your tone and body language. With technology, all of that is gone,” says Bowman.

A social work supervisor who was terminated in February of 2005, as a result of nine allegations of sexual harassment being filed against him, ultimately prevailed in a settlement that will allow him to truthfully say on future job applications that he quit and was not fired.

The supervisor, Cesar Bedroni, had worked in San Luis Obispo County, California and was terminated by the county to emphasize that sexual harassment would not be tolerated from county employees. Bedroni appealed his firing and, after hearing testimony from those involved, the Civil Service Commission ultimately suspended him for three months without pay and gave him his job back. This decision pitted the Board of Supervisors against the Civil Service Commission which meant that the county was suing itself. Despite that a Superior Court judge then ruled that the Civil Service Commission had not acted unreasonably in restoring Bedroni’s position, the County again fired Bedroni when he returned to his job.

Bedroni then filed the instant lawsuit alleging that he was retaliated against by the county for successfully challenging his first dismissal.

A former Bay Minnete, Alabama employee, Deanna M. Rider, has brought a sexual harassment and workplace retaliation suit under Title VII of the Equal Pay Act, alleging that Public Works Director Lamar Hadley propositioned her for sex, slapped her on the rear and tried to feel her breasts. The suit also alleges that upon receiving her complaint of the alleged sexually harassing acts, the city fired her from her position.

Among the allegations contained in the complaint were that Hadley called Rider at home, made numerous advances toward her and, on one occasion, asked Rider to take off her panties and show Hadley her private area.

The Illinois Supreme Court has held that the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office is liable for damages and legal costs in a sexual harassment case brought by a records clerk. The clerk, Donna Feleccia Scroggin, alleged that she was sexually harassed by sheriff’s Sergeant, Ron Yanor. Scroggin claimed that Yanor had invited her to come to a bar, showed up at her house uninvited, tried to kiss her and sent her a letter written on Illinois Department of Public Health stationary that falsely indicated that she had been exposed to a sexually transmitted disease. The Illinois Human Rights Commission awarded Scroggin $10,000 in damages and $13,400 to cover her legal fees. The Commission held that the sheriff’s office response to Scroggin’s claims were reprehensible, as they only suspended Yanor for four days and told Scroginn not to go public with her charges. The appellate court had reversed the Commission’s ruling, holding that the sheriff’s office was not responsible for Yanor’s actions because Scroggin was not under their direct supervision. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the Commission’s ruling, finding that the evidence of the forged letter, together with the other conduct that was proved by Scroggin, was sufficient to establish a hostile working environment and sexual harassment claim.

The Florida Department of Corrections faces a lawsuit from more than 100 female employees alleging sexual harassment from male inmates under the Civil Rights Act, which provides the right for employees to be free from sex discrimination and harassment in the workplace. According to a recent article in The Miami Herald, the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court in Tallahassee, described “conduct so hostile, notorious and commonplace that it is referred to by prison staff and inmates as ‘gunning.’”

The suit follows a recent jury award of $1.6 million for female workers who faced similar treatment by inmates. Walter McNeil, Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, acknowledged that such incidents do occur in the workplace, but assured that steps were being taken to protect female employees. For example, last year, the Florida Department of Corrections changed its rules to make intentional exposure of genitals or masturbating by an inmate result in 60 days in disciplinary confinement and the loss of 90 days of gain time.

The Society for Human Resource Management reports that 97% of U.S. companies have a written sexual harassment policy. Researchers at the University of Missouri found, however, that such policies might not be effective in preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. This is because researchers found that individuals’ perceptions of flirting and sexual harassment and their understanding of the terms are not always a “perfect match.”

According to Debbie Dougherty, Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies at the University of Missouri Department of Communication, the participants in the study “did not consider that their meaning would be different from others. While participants acknowledge that others may perceive behaviors differently, they seemed to assume that they all used the same definition to determine when someone had crossed the line from harmless flirting into sexual harassment."

The bottom line is that a sexual harassment policy is just not enough. Managers and human resource professionals must continue to provide training and coaching on the subject of sexual harassment in the workplace.

The Vineland Board of Education approved a $125,000 out-of-court settlement to Joni Kane, the district’s public information assistance, who commenced a civil sexual harassment suit in 2006 against district spokesperson John Sbrana and the school system. Kane charged Sbrana and the school with placing her in a hostile work environment where she was sexually harassed, and denied promotions and pay increases.

The suit alleged that one month into Kane’s employment with the communications office in 1997, Kane was subject to sexual advances by Sbrana through emails. In 1998, after avoiding Sbrana’s advances, Kane was told that she would have to work weekends, holidays and evenings without overtime compensation. The suit also named the district for failing to resolve the hostile work environment and abusive work conditions. Kane’s attorney, Marc Weinberg, said the situation had caused Kane “extreme physical and psychological injuries,” warranting compensatory and punitive damages.

The Board of Education split in a 5-3 vote to authorize the payment by the district’s insurance carrier. Objections were made with respect to how the investigation was handled at the outset when allegations of sexual harassment first arose in 2006. Frank Giordano, President of the Board, said that even though there was an interest in letting the matter proceed to give each party equal access to justice, if the district lost in court and Kane was awarded more than $125,000, the remaining balance would have to be paid by taxpayers. However, Superintendent Charles Ottinger explained that the Board’s displeasure with the outcome and their legal representation was not a reflection on the merits of Kane’s case, and further reiterated that any employee who is subject to sexual harassment should bring the matter to the attention of the administration.

A nurse from Flushing Hospital was awarded $15 million after a jury found that the hospital had allowed a doctor to abuse female employees for eight years according to a recent New York Daily News article. The nurse stated that “everybody knew it was an atmosphere of dirty jokes in the hallways and at the nursing station, but no one did anything about it.”

A doctor repeatedly made dirty jokes, propositioned and physically harassed female employees. Despite receiving complaints, hospital supervisors did nothing to correct the behavior. Furthermore, the doctor has a history of sexual harassment violations. In 1996, he was charged with having a two-year sexual relationship with an alcoholic patient.

Sexual harassment occurs either when one explicitly or implicitly rejects the improper sexual conduct of another and this rejection affects an individual's employment in ways such as interfering with one's work performance, or in some cases creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. It is unlawful for an employer to allow supervisors and other coworkers to create or maintain a workplace that may interfere with work because of intimidating, hostile or offensive sexual harassing conduct.

The New York Times published an article on February 24, 2009 regarding a Federal judge in Galveston, TX who was indicted last August on charges of sexual abuse against his case manager and secretary. The case shocked the community and led to courthouse demonstrations. On February 23, 2009 the case ended abruptly with a plea agreement.

Judge Samuel Kent retired from the bench and pleaded guilty to one count of obstruction of justice in Federal court in Houston, averting a trial on five other counts involving sexually inappropriate behavior with employees. The obstruction of justice charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, but people who are involved in the case have said that the government is expected to seek a three year sentence.

Judge Kent’s indictment described his advances on his case manager and secretary as particularly lewd, involving groping and forcing the women’s faces into his groin area. The Judge had maintained that his advances were invited and enjoyed, but his admission that they in fact were not, was part of his plea deal. Judge Kent would have been the first district judge to be tried on Federal sexual harassment charges.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on January 26, 2009, which is sure to be the subject of man future blog posts. In Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, the plaintiff was a former municipal employee who had been terminated. The company stated that it had fired the employee for “embezzlement.” The employee, however, believed that she was terminated because she participated in an investigation into a sexual harassment complaint asserted by a co-worker. Crawford stated that she was being punished for having confirmed that the complaining employee was actually sexually harassed.

The issue, therefore, was not whether the employee who asserts a claim was protected by workplace retaliation laws – which she would be – but whether an employee who does not herself assert a claim but merely participates in the investigation is also protected.

The Court unanimously agreed that such an employee was protected. Justice Souter wrote that “When an employee communicates to her employer a belief that the employer has engaged in a form of employment discrimination, that communication virtually always constitutes the employee’s opposition to the activity.” The Court recognized, therefore, that just by confirming that sexual harassment occurred, the employee was opposing it.

While this decision has long been the rule in New York, both the district and appellate courts in Crawford had reached the opposite conclusion. We are pleased to see that the U.S. Supreme Court is ensuring that employees who in any way oppose discrimination in the workplace are protected against workplace retaliation.

A whistleblower case involving the firing of a Catholic school’s principal is set to appear before the Florida Supreme Court, according to a recent Daily Business Review article. The case, previously tossed out of the 3rd District Court of Appeals, pits a plaintiff who claims she was wrongly forced out of her job as a principal at a Catholic school in Miami after complaining that her supervisor assaulted her against the Archdiocese of Miami.

The two sides differ on their interpretation of the Church’s domain. The plaintiff believes that she was fired for a purely secular reason; the archdiocese believes the case lies within the Church’s jurisdiction and therefore is not subject to the court's ruling.

Sexual harassment, like other forms of employment discrimination, is not something that must be proven with a "smoking gun." There will never be a memorandum sent around encouraging such conduct in the workplace. Rather, sexual harassment in the workplace occurs clandestinely, behind closed doors. It is increasingly important for both men and women, to remain aware of their rights and protections under the law with respect to employment discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace.

In October 2007, Dentsu America and its CEO were named as defendants in a sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit, Biegel v. Dentsu Holdings USA, Inc., filed by one of its former creative directors in New York federal court. Plaintiff Steve Biegel alleges, among other things, that while in Tokyo on business, he and his co-workers were compelled to attend a work outing at a Japanese bath house with one of his superiors at Dentsu, CEO Toyo Shigeta. In court papers, Biegel alleges that while at the bath house, he and his co-workers were “expected to climb naked” into a bath with Shigeta. In his complaint, Biegel claims that he was “offended and humiliated by this outrageous, sexually degrading experience imposed upon him as a condition of his employment.”

The defendants in their court papers do not deny that Biegel was taken to the Japanese bath house by Shigeta. Instead, the defendants challenge his allegation by claiming that Biegel waited over a year-and-a-half after purportedly visiting the bath house before he allegedly spoke to Shigeta about it. Further, the defendants maintain that the bath house is not “objectively offensive.” In moving to dismiss the complaint, the defendants argue that “well-known tourist guides such as Time Out Tokyo, Frommer’s Tokyo, Lonely Planet Tokyo and Rough Guide to Tokyo depict the Bathhouse as a classy, clean and traditional family venue...” The court papers also note that bath house patrons are provided with robes during their experience.

The defendants’ arguments with respect to the bath house may pose some challenges. Plainly, the disclaimer-like assertion, that bath robes are provided to patrons, fails to address the simple fact that the robes eventually are meant to come off, when one is stepping into the communal bath. Also, it is not effective for defendants to argue that bath houses have been a major part of Japanese culture and tradition, since today the bath house appears to be in decline. According to web-japan.org and japan-guide.com, the Japanese bath house, or Sento, has been decreasing in numbers in recent decades as private baths have become prevalent in Japanese homes.

Further, U.S. employment discrimination laws rely on the perspective of a reasonable person to determine what constitutes sexual harassment. In our experience, international companies with offices in the U.S. may encounter issues where American social norms and broad human rights laws leave less room for conduct that may otherwise be considered acceptable in other countries.

When it comes to sexual harassment and the workplace, the maxim, “It’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye” sometimes becomes conventional wisdom. Corporate outings at bathhouses, brothels (also alleged in Biegel’s complaint) and strip clubs are activities that can become the genesis of sexual harassment and discrimination claims, regardless of which country these outings occur in.