Search

Maine Mandatory Training Law Summary

Federal and Maine Cases

Federal Cases

Supreme Court Establishes Affirmative Defense

A lifeguard prevailed on her sexual harassment complaint against her employer even though she did not report the harassment. The lifeguard contended she was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment when her supervisors engaged in activities such as touching the lifeguard’s buttock, commenting on her shape, suggesting the lifeguard submit to a sexual relationship, and making other and numerous sexual comments. The Court recognized that an employer may avoid liability for sexual harassment that does not result in a tangible employment action if it can show that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct sexually harassing behavior and that the employee failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer. In this case, however, the Court found the employer had not exercised reasonable care to prevent the supervisor’s harassing conduct because it had not disseminated its sexual harassment policy to lifeguards, the policy did not provide a reporting mechanism to bypass the offending supervisors, and the employer failed to keep track of the conduct of its supervisors.

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S.Ct. 2275 (1998).

 

A female salesperson resigned and sued her employer for sexual harassment. The plaintiff alleged that on three occasions a supervisor threatened to make her life harder if she did not succumb to his sexual advances. The plaintiff refused the supervisor’s advances, but the supervisor did not follow through on his threats. Although the plaintiff was aware of the company’s policy against sexual harassment, she did not report the harassment until three weeks after she resigned. The Court found that an employer can be liable for a hostile work environment where a supervisor makes explicit threats to alter a subordinate’s terms or conditions of employment, but does not fulfill the threats. However, as in the Faragher case, the Court found that such an employer may avoid liability if it can show that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct sexually harassing behavior and that the employee failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for a determination as to whether the employer could avoid liability by proving the affirmative defense.

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (1998).

 

Sexual Harassment Case Results in Reasonable Woman Standard

A woman who worked for the Internal Revenue Service alleged a co-worker sexually harassed her by repeatedly asking her out for lunch and writing her notes that she found shocking and frightening. In determining whether the co-worker’s conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the woman’s employment and create an abusive working environment, the Court determined that the co-worker’s conduct must be judged from the viewpoint of a reasonable third person who shares the same gender characteristic of the plaintiff – in this case, a reasonable woman. In establishing the “reasonable woman” standard, the Court recognized that there are differences between the sexes in how the co-worker’s conduct would be perceived. The Court found it most appropriate to view the conduct as would a reasonable person of the same gender of the plaintiff.

Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991).

 

Jury Finds for Plaintiff in Hostile Work Environment Case

A female school bus driver was sexually harassed by her male supervisor over a period of six months. In one instance, the supervisor handed her his pubic hairs. As a result of the harassment, the plaintiff suffered psychological problems for the next year and a half.

The plaintiff brought a hostile environment sexual harassment lawsuit against the school district and her supervisor. A jury found that the plaintiff had been subjected to a sexually hostile work environment. The jury awarded the plaintiff $400,000 in compensatory damages and $32,500 in punitive damages. An appeals court later upheld the award.

Sornia v. El Centro Elementary School, 2008 U.S.App. LEXIS 8345 (9th Cir. 2008).

 

Female Employee Wins Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit

A female plaintiff was sexually harassed by her supervisor, an operations manager. The plaintiff alleges that at weekly work meetings the supervisor kissed her and asked her questions of a sexual nature. She also alleges that she was treated unfavorably after rejecting his advances. For example, she was denied days off, experienced delays in receiving her paycheck, and had her shift changed to a less desirable time. The plaintiff complained to her supervisor and an upper level manager. The upper level manager reportedly told her, “Do you want really to do this? Because you’re going to get [the supervisor] in trouble.”

The plaintiff filed a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against her employer. The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded her $3 million, which the court reduced to $850,000 due to statutory caps on certain kinds of damages.

Alvarado v. Fed. Express Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21269 (N.D. Cal. 2008).

 

Employer Found Liable for Harassment and Retaliation

A female bar manager at a hotel was sexually harassed by her direct supervisor, who was the hotel’s general manager, throughout her employment. The sexual harassment included comments by the general manager about his and the plaintiff’s bodies, details of his sexual escapades with other women, and descriptions of his pornography collection. The general manager also touched and grabbed the plaintiff’s hips, genital area, and breasts. He even sexually propositioned her during work hours. The plaintiff eventually complained of sexual harassment to the owner/operator of the hotel, who did not investigate the complaint and took no action to stop the harassment. Finally, the general manager terminated the plaintiff’s employment on Christmas Eve because she would not succumb to his propositions.

The plaintiff sued the hotel for a variety of reasons, including sexual harassment and retaliation. The court found that the employer was liable and awarded the plaintiff around $268,000 in damages and attorney’s fees.

Merrifield v. Miner’s Inn Rest. & Lounge, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68841 (E.D. Cal. 2006).

 

Police Officer Awarded Over $1 Million After Complaints Ignored

A police officer in Puerto Rico was awarded more than $1 million by a federal jury based on her claims that she was subjected to sexual harassment, retaliation, and violation of due process. The officer claimed that she was sexually harassed by a fellow officer. Although her initial report stopped the harassment briefly, subsequent reports resulted in continued inappropriate conduct and retaliation, including reassignment to less favorable posts and threats of being laid off. The jury award included compensatory damages under federal law of $250,000 and compensatory damages under state law of $250,000, plus damages against the individual alleged harasser of $80,000. Under state law, the compensatory damages were doubled to raise the total amount to just over $1 million. The officer was also reinstated to her former position. The jury award was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Valentin-Almeya v. Municipality of Aguadilla, 447 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2006).

 

Employer Retaliates Against Plaintiff for Participating in a Discrimination Claim

A male police officer worked for the same department for over 30 years. At one point, he made a written complaint about numerous problems he perceived within the police department, including his allegation that coworkers were sexually harassing a female officer. Several years later, the female officer filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the police department. The plaintiff sent the female officer a copy of the written complaint he made about the harassment. The female officer then submitted the plaintiff’s complaint as evidence at a hearing held by the state commission investigating the lawsuit. Shortly after the hearing, the plaintiff was reassigned to a different position. The new position involved less compensation and no supervisory responsibility. The police department eventually placed the plaintiff on administrative leave. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming that the police department retaliated against him because of his participation in an employment discrimination claim. The jury agreed and awarded him $300,000 for lost wages and emotional distress.

McDonough v. City of Quincy, 452 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2006).

 

Plaintiff Fired After Filing Sexual Harassment Claim Against Supervisor

A female account manager at a consulting firm was repeatedly harassed by her male supervisor. For example, her supervisor invited her to his home and to join him on vacations. He also gave her jewelry, in violation of a company policy against such gifts. He spent excessive amounts of time in her office watching her work and once arranged an “urgent” early-morning meeting with her but then could not explain the reason for the meeting.

The plaintiff complained to upper management about the harassment. The company launched an investigation, pursuant to which it contacted the supervisor. The supervisor then attempted to contact the plaintiff directly. The company eventually called a meeting between the plaintiff and her supervisor, as well as other employees, to discuss the plaintiff’s allegations. The plaintiff refused to attend a meeting with the supervisor, and the company terminated her employment for insubordination. The plaintiff brought a lawsuit against her employer claiming she was retaliated against because of her sexual harassment complaint. The jury found for the plaintiff on her retaliation claim and awarded her over $77,000.

Pappas v. Watson Wyatt & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21996 (D. Conn. 2008).

 

Maine State Court Case

Single Act of Harassment Enough for HostileWork Environment Claim

The Supreme Court of Maine upheld a judgment for a plaintiff who alleged a hostile work environment based upon a single act of harassment. The plaintiff worked as an administrative assistant in an office with only one supervisor. The plaintiff’s supervisor was aware that the plaintiff was experiencing financial difficulties as a result of a separation from her husband. The plaintiff claimed her supervisor offered her money in exchange for sex. She resigned from the company after this offer. The employer had no policy regarding sex harassment and no complaint procedure. The Court found these facts sufficient to support an award to the plaintiff of back pay, attorneys’ fees, and $1,000.

Nadeau v. Rainbow Rugs, Inc., 675 A.2d 973 (ME 1996).