| |
| Page - 1 2 3 4 5 |
| |
 |
| |
| PUNITIVE AWARD VACATED |
| (Davey v. Lockheed Martin Corp.) |
| |
| FRONT PAY CANNOT BE SPECULATIVE |
| |
| $150,000 AWARD REVERSED IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE |
| (Alfano v. Costello 2nd Circuit) |
| |
| REQUIRED SEX ACTS |
| (Jin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.) |
| |
| ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WHICH REQUIRED EMPLOYEES TO PAY FOR THEIR ATTORNEY IS UNENFORCEABLE |
| (McCaskill v. SCI Management Corp. 7th Cir.) |
| |
| EMPLOYEE'S CLAIM OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT, INCLUDING RAPE, DISMISSED |
| (Walton v. Johnson & Johnson Servs. M.D. Fla.) |
| |
| CHURCH MAY FIRE LESBIAN YOUTH MINISTER |
| (Bryce v. Episcopol Church in The Diocese of Colorado) |
| |
| MALE SECURITY GUARD's OBSCENE EXPRESSIONS |
| (Davis v. Coastal International Security Inc.) |
| |
| TEMPS SUE CAR DEALERSHIP |
| (Isom - McDaniel v. Bob Watson Chevrolet Inc., N.D. ILL.) |
| |
| IMPERMISSIBLY FEMININE |
| (Centola v. Potter, D. Mass) |
| |
| SHAREHOLDER SUES BOARD FOR PERMITTING CEO TO SEXUALLY HARASS |
| (White v. Panic, Del.) |
| |
| PUNITIVE DAMAGES MAY BE SOLE REMEDY |
| (Cush-Crawford v. Adchem Corp.) |
| |
| SECRETARY'S SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM FAILS BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T COMPLAIN PROMPTLY |
| (Jackson v. Arkansas Dep't. Of Educ. 8th Cir.) |
| |
| FAILURE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT SECOND TIME RESULTS IN DISMISSAL |
| (Woods v. Delta Beverage Group, Inc. 5th Cir.) |
| |
| COMPLAINT TO MANAGER INVOLVED WITH HARASSMENT PREVENTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT |
| (Morton v. Steven Ford Mercury of Augusta, Inc. D. Kan) |
| |
| SIXTH CIRCUIT USES MOTHER GOOSE TO SUM UP TRIAL COURT'S DECISION-THEN REVERSES |
| (EEOC v. Harbert-Yeargin, Inc.) |
| NO FREE PASS TO HARASS |
| (Lipphardt v. Durango.) |
| DEPLORABLE HARASSMENT EXCUSED |
| (Rizzo v. Sheahan) |
| GAY MAN'S TITLE VII CLAIM REJECTED |
| (Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co., Third Circuit). |
| EMPLOYEES PRIOR WORK AS A PROSTITUTE INADMISSIBLE IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE |
| (Chamblee v. Harris & Harris, Inc. S.D.N.Y) |
| SEXUALLY SUGGESTIVE PICTURES |
| (Rheineck v. Hutchinson Technology Inc. Eight Circut) |
| SUCCESSOR EMPLOYER LIABLE UNDER TITLE VII |
| (EEOC v. SWP Inc. N.D. Ind.) |
| |
| SILENT SUFFERING IS NOT TANGIBLE EMPLOYMENT ACTION |
| (Matvia v. Bald Head Island Management Inc. 4th Cir.) |
| |
| MALE STEREOTYPES |
| (Nicholas v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises Inc.) |
| |
| LIAR GETS CASE THROWN OUT |
| (Martin v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.) |
| |
| NO TANGIBLE EMPLOYMENT ACTION FOUND |
| (Murray v. Chicago Transit Auth.) |
| POLICY AND TRAINING PROVIDES PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROTECTION |
| (Cooke v. Stefani Management Services Inc.) |
| |
| GAY PARTNERS, BUT NOT UNMARRIED HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES, GET BENEFITS |
| (Irizarry v. Chicago Board of Ed.) |
| |
| FEDERAL COURT FINDS DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE PLAN PROVIDES FOR NO CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE |
| (Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co. W.D. Wash.) |
| |
| MAINE REQUIRES HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR DOMESTIC PARTNERS |
| |
| SEXUAL HARASSMENT MUST BE IN EMPLOYEE'S ORBIT |
| Leibovitz v. New York City Transit Auth. |
| |
|
| |
| Page - 1 2 3 4 5 |
| |
