FedEx Driver Wins $3.24M in sex discrimination and harassment case

AP (Mark Scolforo) reports; “FedEx Driver Is Awarded $3.24M in Sex Case”

A federal jury in Harrisburg awarded $3.24 million to a former FedEx tractor-trailer driver who claimed she was sexually harassed and had the brakes on her truck sabotaged five separate times in an attempt to intimidate her.

The jury found Federal Express Corp. . . . liable for a hostile work environment and retaliation against Marion Shaub, 47, and determined it had intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress. Shaub was awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages, $391,000 in back pay and $350,000 for pain and suffering.

There must have been a state law claim, as these amounts exceed the top damages cap under Title VII. Indeed, the EEOC press release indicates there was a successful “intentional infliction of emotional distress” claim.

Shaub was the only female tractor-trailer driver at the . . . facility at Harrisburg International Airport . . . from 1997 to 2000. During that period, she was subjected to sexual innuendo and harassment and unfairly given poor assignments, her attorneys said.

The [EEOC] sued the company in February 2002, and Shaub was subsequently allowed to join the suit.

The EEOC complaint said that among the “anti-female remarks” Shaub’s male co-workers made to her were that women should be “barefoot and pregnant” and that she “looked like a porn star.” One male colleague told Shaub that if she were his daughter, “he would abort her,” according to the suit.

Shaub also claimed that her brakes were loosened, the brake lines were cut and the lines were filled with dirt.

This situation of having only one female employee (or very few) in a traditionally male job classification presents a very high risk of sexual harassment or discrimination. Special care should be taken in such situations to communicate anti-harassment policies and to monitor compliance.

It is also noteworthy that most of the conduct was not what is normally thought of as sexual harassment. But it met the definition of sex discrimination in that it clearly targeted the woman because of her gender. This, rather than whether conduct is “sexual,” is the key element of a violation.