Table
of Contents
Treatise Search Age
Discrimination
Disability Discrimination Family and
Medical Leave

Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF


Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997

 

National Origin Discrimination Pregnancy Discrimination Race
Discrimination
Religious
Discrimination
Sex
Discrimination
Sexual
Harassment

 

 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Court upholds jury verdict finding sexual harassment, but reverses award of punitive damages.

Ocheltree v. Scollon Productions, Inc., 335 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. July 18, 2003)(en banc) - This is a Title VII sexual harassment action in which the Fourth Circuit, en banc, vacates Ocheltree v. Scollon Productions, Inc., 308 F.3d 351 (4th Cir. October 10, 2002). Lisa Ocheltree worked for Scollon from February 1994 to August 1995. According to Ocheltree, the all-male staff regularly engaged in sexually-oriented discussions and conduct -- much of it designed to embarrass Ocheltree. She complained to her immediate supervisor, but he took no corrective action; and in fact, he engaged in part of the harassment. She also attempted to complain to the male owner and a female who was second in command, but they never had time for her. At trial, a jury found in favor of Ocheltree. The Fourth Circuit affirms the jury verdict -- with the exception that it reverses the award of punitive damages. The most significant holdings are: (1) a reasonable jury could find that much of the sex-laden and sexist talk and conduct was aimed at Ocheltree "because of her sex" in order to make her uncomfortable; (2) the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to be actionable; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to hold Scollon responsible for co-worker harassment because it should have known that the harassment was occurring. The Court arrives at this last conclusion based on the fact that Scollon's company policy against verbal abuse was not really an anti-harassment policy. Furthermore, the policy did not require supervisors to report complaints of harassment up the chain of command. Also, Scollon's "Open Door Policy" was an illusion -- at least for Ocheltree where she could not get company principals to meet with her. However, the Court reverses the award of punitive damages because there was no evidence that Scollon knew it was violating Ocheltree's federally protected rights. Click here to see actual case.

 



 

Table of
Contents
Treatise Who should
advertise?
Contact Us About Us Privacy Policy

© 2010 Garland's Digest