1. A REVIEW OF RELEVANT
SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES
RYAN A. O’DONNELL ESQ.
CHELSEA F. RUZZO, ESQ.
2. GRIFFIN V. YANKEE SILVERSMITH, LTD
Plaintiff was a sales associate and assistant manager; her
supervisor was the sole owner of the store. Plaintiff alleged that
over a few months her supervisor repeatedly engaged in
inappropriate conversation and stared at her in a sexual manner.
Plaintiff wrote a letter in mid-September to the defendants
detailing her sexual harassment allegations and demanding it
cease. Her supervisor, the owner, responded in writing, outlining
his complaints with her job performance, and instructing her to
withdraw her complaint to keep her job.
Plaintiff refused and she was terminated.
3. GRIFFIN V. YANKEE SILVERSMITH,
LTD CONT’D…
Plaintiff filed a retaliation claim. The jury found in favor
of the defendants.
Plaintiff appealed and claimed the court did not define
sexual harassment to the jury, including quid pro quo
harassment.
The Court agreed with the lower court’s instructions
due to the fact the Plaintiff’s complaint did not include
an allegation of quid pro quo sexual harassment, and
no evidence of such harassment was introduced at trial.
4. FELICIANO V. AUTOZONE, INC.
Plaintiff, an African-American woman, worked for
Defendant as a sales clerk and then a supervisor.
She was later transferred to a different location.
In May, 2007, Defendant’s loss prevention
computer flagged 20 transactions involving the
same customer loyalty card number. 19 of these
transactions were processed by the Plaintiff.
An investigation took place and Plaintiff
admitted she signed into the register and let
other employees use her sign in number.
Plaintiff was terminated. Plaintiff filed suit.
5. FELICIANO V. AUTOZONE, INC.
CONT’D…
With regard to the sexual harassment claim, Plaintiff
alleged that her manager repeatedly rubbed his body
against her buttocks. When she complained he texted
her and called her a bitch. He commented she had a
flat ass, and tried to play with her hair. Her manager
would wear a wig to make fun of her hair.
Plaintiff stated he would smack a coworker on her
buttocks, and would make comments about female
customers. He called her a man and told her to suck it
up when she was out of work due to an injury.
Plaintiff complained to her supervisor and was told to
stop being petty.
6. FELICIANO V. AUTOZONE, INC.
CONT’D
The CT Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decision
regarding the sexual harassment claim, stating it was clear the
Defendant understood Plaintiff’s hostile work environment
allegations since the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
attempted to discredit that theory.
The Court found that a reasonable juror could find that
Defendant’s workplace was permeated with discriminatory
intimidation, ridicule and insult that is sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment.
7. PATINO V. BIRKEN MGF. CO.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a machinist from
1977 to 2004. In 1991 Plaintiff was the subject of name-
calling on the shop floor. Name-calling included
derogatory slurs for homosexuals in Spanish, English
and Italian. This occurred two to three times a day.
Plaintiff recorded these incidents in a diary. After 5-6
years Plaintiff complained to his supervisor.
The harassment continued and worsened despite
intervention attempts. Plaintiff continued writing letters
to the Defendant detailing the continued harassment
for years.
Plaintiff filed 5 complaints with the CHRO.
8. PATINO V. BIRKEN MFG. CO.
CONT’D…
Plaintiff brought suit, and claimed Defendant permitted his
coworkers to harass him based on his sexual orientation for many
years, and did not take reasonable steps to prevent the
harassment.
The jury found in favor of the Plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
The court upheld the lower decision in favor of the Plaintiff, stating
that the statute barring an employer from discriminating in terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment due to sexual orientation
creates a cause of action for failing to take reasonable steps to
prevent an employee from being subjected to hostile work
environment. Further, there was sufficient evidence to establish
that a hostile work environment.
9. DENAULT V. COMMUNITY
HEALTH AFFILIATES
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as VP of Human Resources. Plaintiff’s
supervisor, Gorman, began sexually harassing her and other female
employees. This continued until she resigned 3 years later, despite her
protests of such conduct on multiple occasions.
Plaintiff alleged that Gorman offered her a ride to a coworker’s wedding
and she declined. After, her supervisor would not speak to her for 2 weeks.
Gorman made comments about female coworkers, such as stating he liked
“the brown ones.” He friended female coworkers on social media and
would make comments he wanted to see more pictures of them in bikinis.
Once at a restaurant a female coworker spilt salad on her blouse and
Gorman stated she should lay down so they could scoop salad off her
chest.
Gorman commented to another female employee that she received
flowers at work because she slept around a lot, and that they were
probably from a woman because white roses means they are from a
lesbian.
10. DENAULT V. COMMUNITY
HEALTH AFFILIATES, CONT’D…
Plaintiff addressed Gorman’s behavior, as did senior management but the
behavior did not stop.
Gorman sent Plaintiff inappropriate and suggestive emails and made
sexually charged comments.
Gorman spoke to Plaintiff about being on Match.com and stated he was a
“tit man” and ”liked a good rack.”
In May 2015 a female employee reported to Plaintiff that Gorman was
staring at her breasts and making her feel uncomfortable, that he was
talking about his personal life and looking for women to date. Plaintiff
confronted Gorman and he said to move the employee’s office.
Plaintiff resigned in May, 2015 due to Gorman’s behavior, and filed suit.
11. DENAULT V. COMMUNITY
HEALTH AFFILIATES, CONT’D…
The court denied the Defendant’s motion to strike the
sexual harassment claim, stating Plaintiff’s complaint
included a course of conduct and series of event that
could be found to be sexually charged and offensive,
and that would meet a proper and legal claim for
sexual harassment.
Further, the complaint sufficiently alleges the
Defendant was aware of the offensive conduct and
allowed it to continue despite numerous complaints.
12. SLOWIK V. MORGAN STANLEY &
CO., INC.
Plaintiff worked as a financial advisor for Defendant, and was hired in
1995. She alleged she was the victim of sexual harassment and
discrimination.
Plaintiff filed numerous complaints, but no supervisor followed
Defendant’s policy of initiating investigations or taking action to prevent
the harassment. Plaintiff was subject to harassment for years, in multiple
office locations.
Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment in May, 2004. Plaintiff filed
suit.
Defendant moved to strike Plaintiff’s claims due to her failure to file a
CHRO claim within 180 days after the last incident of harassment, which
was in April.
Plaintiff claimed her suit was timely as she was subjected to a hostile work
environment until her termination in May.
13. SLOWIK V. MORGAN STANLEY
& CO., INC., CONT’D…
Plaintiff claimed her suit was based on hostile work
environment, not on discrete acts of discrimination.
Plaintiff alleged at least 30 incidents of harassment and
discrimination. Allegations included statements by male
coworkers, including: “you wanna play the hard to get
bitch, I know you want me;” male coworkers
disparaging her to potential clients; male coworkers
pressing their bodies against her; a coworker breaking
into her office and urinating on her rug, etc.
14. SLOWIK V. MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC.,
CONT’D…
The court agreed with the Plaintiff, stating Plaintiff’s
allegations of the numerous incidents of hostility and
discrimination against women in general and against
the Plaintiff are sufficient to support the claim of
continuous violation. Thus, her claims were timely.
