Re: L&I Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth

[Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D.]

"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


So Sue, Group, would victory for Ellerth be very helpful to Paula Jones
Appeal, where even if an Appeals court found the 'act' outrageous, there
would still be for Jones the problem of showing detriment to her
(damages)?
----------------Sue Hartigan wrote:-------------------------------------
> 
> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
> No. 97-569
> 
> Court below:  United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
> 
> At issue in this Title VII sexual harassment case is whether a claim of
> quid pro quo sexual harassment can be asserted against an employer when
> the victim neither submitted to the sexual advances of the perpetrator
> nor
> suffered tangible adverse effects in terms or conditions of employment
> by
> refusing to submit to the harassment.
> 
> Kimberly Ellerth was hired by Burlington in 1993.  During the next year,
> her male supervisor made repeated sexual advances to her.  She rebuffed
> his advances, yet was not tangibly hurt in her employment.   She was
> even
> promoted on one occasion.  She resigned from Burlington in 1994 and
> filed
> suit in federal district court after receiving a right-to-sue letter
> from
> the EEOC.  The court below held that employers may be held strictly
> liable
> for quid pro quo sexual harassment even if the harassed employee neither
> submitted to the supervisor's sexual advances nor suffered adverse
> employment consequences.
> 
> --
> Two rules in life:
> 
> 1.  Don't tell people everything you know.
> 2.
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues


Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues