An employee who waited 3 months after the first act of alleged harassment did not act reasonably. The employer acted reasonably because it had a written anti-harassment policy, reinforced with an annual letter and training. Further, after the complaint, the employer took prompt corrective action.

A male salesperson was struck in the genitals on several occasions by a co-worker who thought it was funny. Since there was no evidence of hostility toward men, there could not be a sexual harassment case.

A supervisor required a subordinate insurance agent to engage in sex acts or face employment termination. The District Court dismissed the case because of the affirmative defenses afforded to employers. The Second Circuit overruled finding that such a threat is a tangible employment action. Because of the tangible employment action, the affirmative defenses did not apply.

A factory worker sued her employer after being grabbed “with force.” The Eighth Circuit found that the employer could only be liable if it “knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action” since the harassment was committed by a co-worker, not a supervisor. The alleged harasser was suspended for five days, warned, sent to training and the harassment stopped. The prompt remedial action resulted in no employer liability.

A prison guard “was simply embarrassed on a handful of occasions over a period of four years by … boorish behavior … and … a dumb joke ” Because the incident’s were infrequent and difficult for the employer to remedy since they were anonymous, the award was reversed.