Sexual Harassment Case

(SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS UNDER TITLE VII)

The opinion and judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on the appeal of the above-captioned case are as follows.

Plaintiff-appellants, Al Bonobo, and his daughter, Monica Bonobo, filed a complaint against defendant-appellee, Peerless Extrusion, Inc. ("Peerless") alleging that Peerless was liable for sexual harassment under Title VII. The District Court granted Peerless' motion for summary judgment finding that the relationship in question between Monica Bonobo and Peerless' supervisor, Bill Johnson, was trivial and had minimal workplace ties. The Court also found that Al Bonobo had suffered no injury cognizable under Title VII.

This Court has reviewed de novo the grant of summary judgment by the District Court in accordance with the standard set forth in Rule 56 --i.e. to determine whether "there is genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

Sec. 2000e.-2(a)(1) of the Civil Rights Act of 1994, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. sec. 2000e. et seq. (1994) provides that:

"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer- . . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's . . . sex."

. . .
efore, was whether Monica's refusal to continue a sexual relationship was expressly or impliedly the basis for her termination. Monica's father (Al Bonobo) evidently thought so because he resigned in protest. He may have not had an unbiased view. Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence to present a factual question as to whether the reason for Monica's termination was her tardiness or her refusal to sleep with Bill, which the District Court should have let the jury decide. If Monica's refusal to sleep with Bill was a basis on which the decision to terminate her was made, then Peerless will be held strictly liable. Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 898, 910 (11th Cir. 1982) and EEOC Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment, N-915.035, Section A, p. 20, as modified by later policy guidance in 29 C.F.R., sec. 1604.1(b). The acts of sexual harassment by Bill were clearly work-related. Once Jooplin became aware of them, she was under a duty to take corrective action which she failed to do. Therefore, if the jury finds that Johnson committed an act of sexual harassment by firing Monica, then Peerless on agency grounds, strict liability, and on negligence grounds, its failure to look into Monica's complaint, will be l
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
District Court, Commission EEOC, Monica Bill, Bill Monica, Rights Act, Ellison Brady, N-915035 Section, Al Bonobo, Nichols Frank, Johnson Peerless, sexual harassment, district court, 9th cir, acts sexual, acts sexual harassment, title vii, quid pro, quid pro quo, pro quo, al bonobo, refusal sleep bill, cir 1991, nichols frank, refusal continue sexual, 9th cir 1991,
Approximate Word count = 1756
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Sexual Harassment Case