A former salesperson sued a car dealership for sexual harassment. The court denied summary judgment. First, the dealership gave one of the employee’s leads to another employee. Since a jury could find this to be a tangible employment action, a trial is needed. Secondly, the employer’s discriminatory harassment policy permitted complaints to any supervisor, which included a manager who had harassed the employee. The employer therefore could not establish that the employee unreasonably failed to complain pursuant to its policy.

An engineer was awarded $200,000 in punitive damages in a sex discrimination case. The 10th Circuit ruled that the employer should have been given a chance to present a “good faith” defense with respect to the punitive damages. At a minimum “an employer must at least adopt anti-discrimination policies and make a good faith effort to educate its employees about these policies and Title VII’s prohibitions.”

A sales clerk complained about sexual harassment. The employer took corrective action and instructed her to report any renewed harassment. Her failure to report renewed harassment resulted in the dismissal of her claim.

A tangible employment action occurs when a supervisor extorts sexual favors from an employee by conditioning the sex act on continued employment. Therefore, the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense is not available in such circumstances.

From day one, a secretary was subjected to sexual harassment by her supervisor. Nine months later, there was a complaint. Since there was no tangible adverse employment action and immediate corrective action after the complaint, the case was dismissed.