Sexual Harassment Case

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."

Related Essays

Workplace Sexual Harassment Case .... are placing too much on the shoulders of the businessman in terms of shaping social policy, but this is not the case with reference to sexual harassment. .... (2139 9 )

Sexual Harassment .... is that if this kind of activity was perpetrated against a woman by a male supervisor it would definitely be regarding as sexual harassment case closed. .... (1274 5 )

Sexual Harassment Cases .... That trial was important because it showed the world how difficult it is to determine which side in a sexual harassment case is telling the truth (Smolowe, 1991 .... (1748 7 )

Sexual Harassment .... at a recent case involving the city of New York as employer, we can see that when it comes to accountability, at this point in sexual harassment history and law .... (968 4 )

Sexual Harassment in Organizations Sexual harassment has always .... That trial was important because it showed the world how difficult it is to determine which side in a sexual harassment case is telling the truth (Smolowe, 1991 .... (1774 7 )

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

Category: Government - S