In June of 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky heard a case involving Louisville Race Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment and Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment case involving three female employees. (See Perry v. Autozoners, LLC, 2013 WL 3146804 (W.D. Ky. 2013)).
One of the plaintiffs was sexually harassed by a manager. It went on for a month and a half until she finally complained to a regional manager. There was a formal investigation where the regional manager spoke to two witnesses (co-plaintiffs in this case). Based on the investigation, the manager was terminated. Also, the two co-plaintiffs who did not immediately report the incidents were terminating for not immediately reporting them. Then the other plaintiff in the case filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging sexual discrimination and retaliation. Id.
After she filed with the EEOC, the harassment became so unbearable that she finally quit about 6 months later. Further, plaintiff made an allegation that male employees received hire pay than female employees. This female plaintiff filed a five count complaint alleging sexual discrimination, sexually hostile work environment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge under both Title VII and KCRA. Id.
The court analyzed plaintiff’s wage discrimination claim under the KCRA and after doing so claimed it survived summary judgment at this time. Next, the court looked at the sexually hostile work environment claim under both Title VII and KCRA. To make out a hostile work environment claim based on sexual harassment, each plaintiff must show that: 1) she was a member of a protected class, 2) she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment, 3) the harassment was based on sex, 4) the harassment created a hostile work environment, and 5) there is a basis for holding the employer liable. (cites omitted). The court found that the plaintiff satisfied the first four elements but not the fifth. She could not allege that she suffered a tangible employment action. But, in that the defendant could not support its burden in response, the court allowed plaintiff’s claims to survive.
Next, the court looked at a Title VII claim of retaliatory hostile work environment claim she must show 1) she engaged in activity protected under Title VII, 2) the defendant was aware that the plaintiff engaged in the protected activity, 3) the plaintiff suffered “severe or pervasive retaliatory harassment by a supervisor, and 4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the … harassment.” (cites omitted). The court after reviewing all of the evidence found that plaintiff did allege enough to support her claim. But, dismissed her claim for retaliatory constructive discharge claim finding that there was no evidence to prove that the defendant intended to force the plaintiff to resign or that her resignation was a foreseeable consequence of its actions. Id.
If you have been the subject of a Louisville Race Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment and Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment case, please call and speak to a Louisville Race Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment and Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew Alitowski, P.A. at 888-ASK-ANDREW (888-275-2637) or contact us. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!