Subscribe to my feedSubscribe to my feed Email subscription by FeedBlitzSubscribe by Email

How Can This Not Be Actionable Sexual Harassment?

Those unfamiliar with principles of sexual harassment liability may be shocked that the allegations of seemingly outrageous harassment in a recent case didn’t allow the plaintiff to avoid summary judgment and proceed to trial, if not prevail at trial.

The news report from which I obtained the information about this case did not explain the grounds for the ruling, but I’ll hazard a few guesses.

The allegations arose from a 14-year personal and professional relationship between a wealthy resort owner and the manager of the spa at one of the resorts.

The really juicy allegations were:

Both agreed they were never sexually active together, but beyond that, much of the story was disputed, and the plaintiff had no corroborating witnesses.

Sounds like a factual dispute about what happened, and summary judgment is only to be granted in the absence of a genuine issue of fact, right?

Not so fast, there. The standard is no genuine issue of material fact.

OK. But how could the truth of these allegations, including offers of million-dollar whoring, not be material?

A number of ways.

Perhaps the court found the incidents not “severe or pervasive,” if occurring only once or twice over 14 years.

Perhaps it found the standard for corporate liability not met because the plaintiff didn’t follow corporate harassment complaint procedures.

Fact is, the test for sexual harassment liability isn’t nearly as simple as whether one would say “outrageous” upon hearing of the allegations.

Orlando Business Journal: “Siegel wins court case in sexual harassment suit”

Sphere: Related Content

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed or by email.

Comments

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

(required)

(required)