AL AND MONICA BONOBO V. PEERLESS EXTRUSION, INC.
(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."
Under policy guidelines issued by the United States Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which are not binding on the federal courts but are used by them as guidance, sexual harassment is defined as
"Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment; (2...