EEOC, A Required Step in the Title VII Complaint Process, June 25, 2001
A female civilian employee of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California had her Title VII case of sexual harassment dismissed by the California Federal District Court because she failed to first file a charge with the EEOC. Sommatino v. United States of America, No. 99-16797 (9th Cir., June 18, 2001).
Shelley Sommatino alleged that she was subject to sexually offensive remarks and unwanted touching by one of her coworkers. She complained to her supervisors and met with her EEOC counselor to discuss her situation, but Ms. Sommatino never filed a formal complaint with the EEOC.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to dismiss the case
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit stated, "[t]he
jurisdictional scope of a Title VII claimant's court action depends upon the
scope of both the EEOC charge and the EEOC investigation." It added, "in cases
where a plaintiff has never presented a discrimination complaint to the
appropriate administrative authority, we have held that the district court does
not have subject matter jurisdiction."
Excessive Absence Not Covered by ADA, June 18, 2001
The Seventh Circuit granted summary judgment to an employer that terminated its employee for excessive absenteeism despite claims that the employee suffered from AIDS- related cancer. EEOC v. Yellow Freight Sys. Inc., No. 99-3415 (7th Cir. June 12, 2001).
Employee Michael Nicosia was hired in August 1990 as a dockworker and promoted to forklift driver before his termination in 1996. During those six years, however, Nicosia was absent 37 days in 1991, 12 days in 1992, 129 days in 1993, 50 days in 1994, 10 days in 1995, and approximately 70 days in 1996. Upon termination, Nicosia filed charges with the EEOC stating that Yellow Freight disciplined him because of his disability and denied him a reasonable accommodation.
To the contrary, the court held that in most instances the ADA does not
protect persons who have erratic, unexplained absences, even when those absences
are a result of a disability. The fact is that in most cases, attendance at the
job site is a basic requirement of most jobs. In most every employment setting,
if one is not present, he is usually unable to perform his job. This is
especially true in factory positions, where the work must be done on the
employer's premises.
No Recovery for Distress Over Rumors of Sexual Harassment, June 11, 2001
The Second Circuit threw out a jury verdict for a New York City subway worker who claimed she was traumatized by reports that female coworkers were being sexually harassed. Leibovitz v. New York City Trans. Auth., No. 98-7757 (2d Cir., June 6, 2001). The court stated that, "Title VII prohibition against hostile work environment affords no claim to a person who experiences it by hearsay."
Evidence of harassment directed at others and remarks made outside of a plaintiff's presence can be relevant to a plaintiff's sexual harassment case. In this situation, however, Ms. Leibovitz presented no evidence that her own working environment was hostile or that the harassment of other women adversely affected the terms and conditions of her own employment.
Kollman & Saucier, P.A., The Business Law Building, 1823 York Road, Timonium, MD 21093 Phone: 410-727-4300
Fax: 410-727-4391 © 2008 Kollman & Saucier, P.A. All rights reserved.
Website maintained by Armistead Technologies, Llc.tm
