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

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

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.

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

Perry v. Harris Chernin, Inc., 126 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir. October 6, 1997)

Keywords: Title VII (hostile work environment sexual harassment, employer liability; constructive discharge)

Introduction: Felicia Perry sued her former employer under Title VII for hostile work environment sexual harassment and constructive discharge. The district court granted the employer's motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the trial. The Seventh Circuit affirms.

Facts: Perry worked as a cashier at one of Chernin's 13 shoe stores that it operated in the Chicago area. Perry's immediate supervisor was George Karnia, who managed the handbag counter. Karnia's supervisor was John Jackson, the store manager. Jackson reported to Mickey Reynolds, the general manager of retail operations. Perry claims that Jackson verbally sexually harassed her. For the purposes of reviewing the grant of the motion the Court assumes that Perry's allegations are true. Perry did not complain about the sexual harassment until after she quit her job. Also, Perry had received an employee handbook which contained a sexual harassment policy. Chernin had also distributed a pamphlet on sexual harassment. Chernin also addressed the issue of sexual harassment in three employee meetings. Furthermore, the sexual harassment policy identified the Director of Human Resources as one of four corporate officers to whom an employee could report unwelcome harassment. Dan Naslund, the Director of Human Resources, visited Perry's store about twice a week, but she never complained to him. After Perry quit her job, she tried to reach Naslund, but was unsuccessful. She finally contacted Mickey Reynolds and complained to him. Reynolds told Perry that Naslund should also be involved in the investigation and asked her to meet with Naslund at the corporate office. Although Perry agreed to come, she never did. Also, Reynolds suggested to Perry that she work at another store during the investigation, but she never took him up on his offer. Reynolds and Naslund investigated, but found no evidence to corroborate Perry's claim.

Law:

1. With respect to her claim of sexual harassment, employers are liable only when they have been negligent either in discovering or remedying the harassment.
2. The rule is no different in a case where the harasser happens to outrank the victim in the company's hierarchy. The exception is a case of quid pro quo harassment, where submission to a supervisor's sexual demands is made a condition of tangible employment benefits. If this were a quid pro quo case, which it is not, liability would be strict.
3. Perry's claim fails because she failed to create a jury question that Chernin was negligent in either discovering the harassment or in its response to the harassment.
4. With respect to the constructive discharge claim, a reasonable person in Perry's position would not have been compelled to resign based on Reynolds's offer of employment at another store.
5. An employee is expected to remain on the job while seeking redress unless conditions are beyond "ordinary" discrimination.
6. Therefore, the Seventh Circuit affirms the district court judgment as a matter of law. Click here to see actual case.