hostile environment sexual harassment

• Tod v. Cincinnati State Technical & Community College, (Ohio 2011)

Supervisor's unwelcome repeated references to female employee's breast size and "Barbie doll" figure constituted hostile work environment sexual harassment.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Recent Decisions- Universities and Other Institutions of Higher Learning

Department head brought Fourth Amendment suit against state university employees and officials alleging his personal laptop computer was improperly seized from his campus office. Discharged Chinese medical resident sued state university and medical school officials alleging race discrimination and related state statutory and tort claims. Chinese medical resident had his medical credits withheld by school officials after refusing to participate in first year lectures and exam, and receiving evaluations rating his performance as inadequate. Disability and Harrassment Athlete and fellow teammate sued state university and others, claiming hostile environment sexual harassment. The coach's alleged conduct, if proven, qualified as sexual harassment based on sex, and was sufficiently sever...

• Journal of Law and Education
• Vol. 36 Nbr. 4, October 2007

• Wrongful Termination

RICHMOND, Va., Oct. 13, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- PetSmart, Inc., (NASDAQ: PETM) was barking up the wrong tree when it subjected its employee Audrey Urda to a hostile work environment, sexual harassment, retaliation, , and other intentional torts in not one but two of its stores. Ms. Urda filed a civil suit today against the multi-billion dollar specialty pet retailer and one of its managers in US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond, VA. The complaint provides explicit details of the sexually degrading and humiliating verbal taunts and the provocative and threatening behavior to which Ms. Urda was consistently subjected during her five-year tenure as a Pet Care Specialist in two PetSmart locations - the first in New York, the later in Virginia.

• U.S. Newswire
• October 13, 2011

• Godsey-Marshall v. Phillipsburg, (Ohio 2010)

No genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to Appellant’s claims for hostile environment sexual harassment; constructive discharge; retaliation; negligent hiring, training, and supervision; or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Summary judgment is proper. Judgment affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, Inc.; To Prove That Your Same-Sex Co-Worker Sexually Harassed You, First Prove That He Was Sexually Attracted To You

Introduction. I. Statement Of The Case. II. Legal Framework Of Sexual Harassment. A. Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment. B. Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment. C. Vicarious Liability. III. Evolution Of Same-Gender Sexual Harassment. A. State Courts' Varied Interpretations of Oncale. IV. The Decision In Hampel. A. Sexual Harassment Must be Motivated by Gender. i. Harassing Conduct Motivated by Sexual Desire Supports an Inference of Discrimination Based on Gender. ii. Harassing Conduct Motivated by Animus to Gender Supports an Inference of Discrimination Based on Gender. B. Conduct Must be Severe or Pervasive. C. Social Context. D. The Reasonable Person Standard. IV. The Implication And Resolution Of Hampel. E. Conclusion.

• Capital University Law Review
• Nbr. 30-4, December 2002

• Chamberlin v. Buick Youngstown Co., (Ohio 2003)

Summary judgment; sex discrimination; quid pro quo sexual harassment; hostile work environment sexual harassment; severe and pervasive conduct.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Commentary: Workplace Issues: What Is a 'Hostile Environment'?

A female former secretary alleged her male boss's misconduct included threats to "choke" or "kill" her raised a triable issue of hostile environment sexual harassment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled, June 29, 2010. Kaytor v. Electric Boat Corp. (2d Cir., 09- 1859). Sharon Kaytor began working in 1973 in Groton, Conn. for Electric Boat. In 1998, she was assigned as a secretary for manager Daniel McCarthy. In 2004, McCarthy began to make Kaytor feel uncomfortable with offensive sexual comments, incidents in which he stood too close to her, and incidents in which McCarthy stated his desire to "choke" Kaytor, to "see her in her coffin," and to "kill" her, the plaintiff alleged.

• Daily Record (Rochester, NY)
• July 30, 2010

• Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, Inc., 89 Ohio St.3d 169 (2000)

Civil rights - Unlawful discriminatory practices - Violation of R.C. 4112.02(A) - Requirements for a claim of hostile-environment sexual harassment - R.C. 4112.02(A) protects men and women from all forms of sex discrimination in the workplace * * *.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Hostile Environment Suit Needn't Include 'Sex' Claims, Rules Minnesota Supreme Court

A female public employee could sue for hostile work environment under state law - even if the alleged offending conduct fell outside the definition of "sexual harassment," the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled. The plaintiff worked as a custodian for a public school district. She alleged that her male supervisor regularly disparaged the work of female employees and treated female custodians differently from their male counterparts. In particular, the plaintiff complained that her supervisor prohibited female custodians from talking with each other unless they were on break, and required only female employees to report via radio when they went on break.

• Lawyers USA
• May 29, 2012

• Payton v. Receivables Outsourcing, Inc., (Ohio 2005)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT - HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT - SEXUAL HARASSMENT - SEX DISCRIMINATION - RETALIATORY DISCHARGE – NEGLIGENCE.

• Ohio Supreme Court