“Visual” Sexual Harassment Settlement Against a Large Electronics Company

$350,000 – “Visual” Sexual Harassment Settlement Against a Large Electronics Company

Plaintiffs were 2 women, 1 supervisor and 1 administrative assistant, who worked for a large electronics company.

The woman who was an administrative assistant alleged that she was sexually harassed when a co-worker showed her a photo of his erect penis. She reported the incident to the other plaintiff, who was her supervisor. The second plaintiff reported the incident to upper management.

The male upper manager failed to investigate the incident and protected his friend, the perpetrator, rather than handle the situation appropriately. Once the perpetrator learned from his upper manager friend that the plaintiffs had complained about him he began to physically intimidate the plaintiffs by blocking their passage way and attempting to corner them as they moved around the office, though he never touched them.

When the plaintiffs complained about this behavior their complaints were still not taken seriously and they retained Winer, McKenna, Burritt & Tillis LLP.

The company attempted to defend the case on legal technicalities, maintaining that merely showing the photo one time did not constitute actionable, severe and pervasive sexual harassment, and the acts of intimidation did not constitute retaliation since plaintiffs were not demoted or fired.

Plaintiffs successfully argued to the court that under the particular circumstances of this case, the showing of the photo, combined with intimidation, was arguably severe and pervasive sexual harassment, and the intimidation materially affected plaintiffs’ ability to work in a hostile-free environment.

RESULT: Settlement on behalf of plaintiffs, $350,000.

*Many of the cases that Winer, McKenna, Burritt & Tillis LLP, has settled are highly confidential. In order to provide consumers with an accurate list of settlements, we have accurately stated the amount of the settlement and the facts of the case, but we have changed the location of the cases and the industry of the companies we have sued to make the identification of the actual company impossible.