Client Terminated for Supporting A Co-Worker’s Case Wins Summary Judgment Motion (2011)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Our client filed a lawsuit of sexual harassment and retaliation against her former employer in Federal district court in Chicago. She had been fired after reporting sexual harassment by a male coworker pulled an object resembling a male’s private part from his crotch area and dragged it across her left cheek and lips. She complained to several members of management who did nothing. During one of her complaints, the supervisor laughed, walked away and did nothing. Within about three days after her complaints, she was accused of having been rude to her sexual harasser’s cousin. The coworker who harassed her then obtained statements from other employees who claimed that they observed her being rude to her harasser’s cousin. The harasser then presented the statements and discussed the issue with his boss who directed him to fire our client. She was then terminated for having been rude to the cousin of the coworker that sexually harassed her.

The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss our client’s case. The employer claimed that the actions by the alleged harasser were not sufficiently significant to constitute sexual harassment. They also argued that our client was properly terminated for creating a hostile work environment for her harasser’s cousin. We filed our response asking that the judge sustain the case. We argued that rubbing a fake male private part across a female employee’s face is sufficiently significant to amount to sexual harassment under the law. We also argued that the real reason for her termination was her many complaints about sexual harassment. Furthermore, the individual who harassed her was the key figure in obtaining witness statements and presenting them to manager who directed that our client be terminated. His motive for trying to get our client fired, we claimed, was due to the fact that our client complained about his harassing conduct.

The presiding Honorable Judge rejected the employer’s arguments, agreed with us and denied the employer’s motion in its entirely, awarding our client a victory and a jury trial in her case. A jury trial is set to occur in Federal court on December 2011.

Sex Harassment Retaliation Client Fired for Supporting Coworker Defeats Summary Judgment (2011)

United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (March 2011)

Our client filed a retaliation lawsuit against her former employer in federal court. She had been fired by Defendent, after testifying in a lawsuit by another female worker. That employee claimed that she was sexually harassed and retaliated on the job. Our client was named as a witness in that lawsuit and was required to testify because she had also been sexually harassed by the same supervisor.

At her deposition, she testified that she too was sexually harassed by the same supervisor. Within three days of her testimony, she was fired. She then sued for retaliation, claiming that she was terminated because of her testimony. After discovery, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to dismiss her case. The employer claimed that she was fired for bringing a provocative birthday party invitation into the workplace. Attorney Scott Fanning prepared and filed our law firm’s response to that motion. We argued that the employer lied about the reason for the firing because her supervisor had already decided to fire her before even seeing the invitation. We argued that the true reason for her firing was because of testimony that she was also sexually harassed.

The supervisor that fired her had testified that he learned of the birthday party invitation on July 31, 2008 and immediately met with her to fire her. However, both of them worked the second shift on that day. We presented evidence to the court that showed that our client’s termination papers had been faxed on the 31^st at 11:29am – before the second shift started. Defendant had apparently not looked at the date and time stamp on their own faxed papers before settling on their story about her firing. Based on this evidence, she could not have been fired for the invitation because her termination papers were faxed even before the supervisor saw the invitation that he claimed led to the firing.

In handing a decisive victory to our client on this motion, the Judge concluded that our client "has provided sufficient evidence that [Defendant] is lying about why he fired her." Defendant’s arguments were rejected and its motion denied in its entirety.

Sexual Harassment Client Wins $50,000 for Emotional Distress After A Hearing Lasting 3 days (2011)

Plaintiff wins Sexual Harassment Case (IL HRC November 2011)

Our client filed a charge and complaint of discrimination and sexual harassment against her employer in this case who employed her for several years. She claimed that she was harassed by her managing agent who was employed in a supervisory capacity. She testified to at least 16 separate instances of sexual harassment by her managing agent during her employment. Such conduct included asking if she wanted to see his private part and then pulling it out for her to see; stating that her tit---s looked good; asking if she was ready to sleep with him; and engaging in various conversations about viagra and penis pumps. He also rubbed her shoulders from behind her and asked if he could kiss her, claiming that he has soft lips. After objecting to this conduct to no avail, our client along with other coworkers, complained to upper management about the harassing conduct. The managing agent was terminated shortly thereafter.

After a hearing and testimony that lasted approximately 3 days from several witnesses, the presiding Honorable Administrative Law Judge found that the evidence established that our client was sexually harassed. The Judge found the testimony of our client to be credible and the Respondent was liable for the harassment because the harasser was in a supervisory role when he perpetrated those acts. The Judge further ruled that the harassment resulted in mental anguish for our client. In awarding her $50,000 in mental anguish damages, the Judge cited evidence that she missed work, did not sleep well, stopped eating and felt just depressed. Furthermore, the harassment caused her to feel tired, hurt and ignored, justifying an award of compensatory damages. The Judge has since permitted our client to submit her attorneys fees and costs to the Commission to determine how much of those fees and expenses that respondent will pay.

Sexual Harassment Client Defeats Summary Judgment Motion By Illinois County Sheriff’s Department (2012)

United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Div, (January 2012)

Our client filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against a County Sheriff and some male correctional officers alleging a pattern of sexual harassment and intimidation of female correctional officers. She claims that she was subjected to sexual advances, conduct amounting to hazing, requests for sexual favors, comments derogatory to women and pornographic screen savers depicting a males private part as well as pictures of naked women in the workplace. She further claimed that officers maintain a so called “Book of Shame” containing inmate booking photos, arrested correctional officers, with offensive and derogatory captions such as “I give good blow jobs” written on them. She also claims that she was on the receiving end of endless sexual jokes, innuendos and derogatory nicknames such as “swamp donkey”, “swamp bucket” and others. This pervasive conduct created a hostile and intimidating working environment for her and other female employees. When she complained, the Sheriff’s office failed to take effective corrective action against her tormentors.

After the close of discovery and depositions, all of the Defendants moved for summary against on all of her claims, arguing that her case is insufficient to warrant a jury trial. Attorney Scott Fanning from our office submitted a response disputing Defendants assertions and outlined significant quantities of evidence of a pattern of sexual harassment, intimidation and derogatory treatment of our client as well as other female officers, some of whom had previously filed lawsuits of sexual harassment. After reviewing the voluminous submissions from both sides, the Honorable Judge on the case denied Defendants’ motion in part and sustained Plaintiff’s case against the Sheriff and the Officer. In doing so, the Court stated that Plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence whether “the atmosphere at the ADF was permeated with incessant unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other physical conduct of a sexual nature. A reasonable jury could conclude, viewing a totality of the circumstances, that the conduct under scrutiny was pervasive and corrosive enough to meet the standard of liability .” With this ruling sustaining the case, the Court has now ordered that the parties exchange information regarding expert witnesses in preparation for a jury trial. A jury trial date is expected to be set later this year.

More Articles...