RELEASE SIGNED BY HR DIRECTOR-DOESN’T RELEASE CLAIM FOR INDEMNIFICATION
An HR Director was sued individually for sexual harassment. Her employment terminated and a release was signed. Her employer then settled the sexual harassment suit, which was filed against the employer and the HR Director. An Appeals Court in Tennessee found that the release did not extinguish the HR Director’s claim for indemnification to recover her attorneys’ fees since the sexual harassment suit was settled after the release was signed. The Court found that the release did not extinguish future claims, and the claim for indemnification did not arise until the case was settled. Sherman v American Water Heater Co. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON EFFEMINACY IS TITLE VII VIOLATION
District Court finds that offensive locker room banter about plaintiff’s effeminate appearance states valid Title VII claim. Jones v Pacific Rail Services CHURCH OF CHRIST MEMBERS ONLY
A jury awarded $170,000 to a nursing administrator who was barred from applying to a position at a nursing home because she was not a member of the Church of Christ. The Sixth Circuit reversed finding that the employee did not meet State certification requirements for the position. She lacked management experience required by the State. Roh v Lakeshore Estates Inc. VULGAR FUN
A jury awarded a female attorney $80,000 for a sexually hostile work environment at a law firm. The District Court judge quashed the award, finding that sexual banter was in a humorous vein and that the associate remained friends with the accused male associates. The Court held that sexual talk and vulgar terms was not hostile or abusive to a severe or extreme degree. Fitzgerald v Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Glesser
Recent News

Contact EEOnews.com

EEOnews.com does not provide legal advice. Contact an employment lawyer to answer your EEO legal questions.

Interactive Employment Training, Inc. © 2001

An African American employee told a supervisor about race harassment by co-workers. The Seventh Circuit found that the supervisor’s investigation was not “textbook in its execution.” However, the supervisor’s action had “the purpose and effect of elimination of further race-based harassment.” Case dismissed. (Williams v. Waste Mgmt. of Ill.)

Mack alleged Otis Elevator should be liable for the hostile environment caused by her supervisor. The employer argued that the “supervisor” could not put the company on the hook because he could not hire, promote, reassign, change benefits or fire. The Second Circuit found that Otis could be liable because the supervisor made and oversaw work assignments.

The Seventh Circuit finds that “the occasional vulgar banter, tinged with sexual innuendo, of coarse or boorish workers would be neither pervasive nor offensive enough to be actionable … The workplace that is actionable is the one that is hellish.”

An employee with a spotty attendance record was fired for being out sick. Her leave was not FMLA protected because she did not tell her employer that her absence was due to depression until litigation started.