Article
Matukaitis Law scores a victory for women enduring sexual harassment at work. Court orders third shift housekeeper's hostile work environment/sex discrimination claims may proceed to trial in Tillison v. Capital Bus Co., 2008 WL 2704536 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (Rambo, J.). In its ruling, the Court held:
"A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute hostile environment sex discrimination under Title VII. Plaintiff has proffered evidence of a workplace permeated by vulgar language of sexual nature. In her deposition, Plaintiff alleged that her supervisor, Bill Long, used to make a sexual comment to her almost every night, often when he was alone with her. For instance, he once asked her what kind of panties she wore, and what color they were. On another occasion he told her that was watching her while she did her work and told her "[y]our titties look so good. I can't even hardly do my work from keeping an eye on you."...Additionally, Long often looked at pornography on his office computer in full view of the third shift workers, and according to Tillison, once asked her to come into his office where he showed her a video of two naked women wresting.
Moreover, these statements and actions occurred in a workplace that by all accounts was permeated with vulgar and derogatory language of a sexual nature used both by Long and other Capitol employees. According to Long, vulgar language "was all around. It was in the garage, in the break room, pretty much everywhere." (Long Dep. 86:17-19.) In his deposition, Long stated that the language used in the Capitol shop was too offensive to use at home in front of his wife and daughter. (Long Dep. 85.) Skip Becker, the Vice President of Human Resources at Capitol, and the official tasked with investigating workplace discrimination under the company's sexual harassment policy, acknowledges that the work environment was worse in the shop and on the night shift than what was permitted in the office. Taken together, the evidence proffered by Plaintiff is sufficient to raise a general issue of material fact as to both the severity and the pervasiveness of sexual harassment in her workplace. Viewing the evidence proffered by Plaintiff in the light most favorable to her, a trier of fact could conclude that she was subjected to severe and pervasive sexual harassment in violation of Title VII."
Furthermore, the Court held there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Bus Company was entitled to the Faragher/Ellereth defense where "Capitol took no affirmative steps to prevent sexual harassment by its managers. It provided no formal sexual harassment or nondiscrimination training to its employees, because the company did not perceive a need for such training."
