|
|
|
Real Life Story of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation
Sherri, Corrections Officer - New HampshireSherri was hired as a correctional officer (CO) for a New Hampshire state prison. During her employment fellow male COs began to comment that Sherri needed to be watched because she was probably screwing inmates. The fellow male COs also routinely read pornographic magazines while on duty, spoke of their penis' size, spoke of their erectile dysfunction, looked at women's breasts and at one point even asked Sherri to give them a blow job. Sherri eventually filed a complaint in accordance with internal procedures and with the EEOC. However, the employer did nothing to stop the harassing conduct, which only increased thereafter. Sherri was subsequently transferred from the unit and was in essence forced to quit The Court ruled in favor of Sherri because the conduct by the fellow employees was hostile and abusive, the employer failed to take appropriate actions and in fact took adverse actions against her that were more likely than not motivated by her report. White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corrections, 221 F.3d 254 (1st Cir. 2000)
Real-Life Story of 'Quid Pro Quo' Sexual HarassmentKatherine, Architect - New HampshireKatherine was a recently graduated architectural designer who was hired by a realty company in February of 1983. At first, she received praise from her immediate supervisor (the president), saying that she did a fabulous job and often volunteered to work. The relationship began to deteriorate when Katherine rejected several sexual advances from her supervisor. Katherine was told that her butt looked real good in tight jeans, she was touched in a sexual manner, and at one point she was invited for a walk on the beach. In every instance Katherine either changed the subject of conversation or refused the invitation. Katherine was subsequently fired on September of 1983 for her poor work performance and lack of dedication to the job. The court determined that, given her prior favorable reviews, the employer's reasons for terminating her had more to do with her resistance to the sexual advances than to her work performance. The court determined that Katherine was a victim of 'quid pro quo' sexual harassment. Chamberlin v. 101 Realty, Inc., 915 F.2d 777 (1st Cir. 1990)
Read Other Women's Stories Tell Us Your Story
|
 |
|
|
|
