00-2414 Worth v. Tyer, et al.

Listen to this article

“[T]he EEOC sent Worth a right-to-sue letter on October 21, 1996. Thus, defendants could have sought to dismiss Worth’s complaint at any time before October 21… However, it was defendants’ duty to bring any deficiency in Worth’s complaint to the court’s attention and they failed to do so in a timely manner. Therefore, defendants’ argument fails because it was not raised before Worth received the October 21, 1996 right-to-sue letter.”

“The jury was presented with conflicting stories: either that Worth was fired for reporting Tyer to the police or that she was fired for poor work product and being absent from work without permission. A rational juror could have believed that termination ‘in light of recent circumstances’ meant that Worth was fired for reporting Tyer to the police and that any post-termination justification was pretextual. See id. Moreover, based on Tyer’s dishonest behavior in this case, the jury was entitled to conclude that Tyer’s justification was not credible.”

“The fact that conduct that involves touching as opposed to verbal behavior increases the severity of the situation… More importantly, in the present case, of the several touching incidents, one involved Tyer touching an intimate body part-Worth’s breast. We have previously recognized that direct contact with an intimate body part constitutes one of the most severe forms of sexual harassment… That the touching in this case lasted for several seconds also increases its severity… Based on the totality of the circumstances… there was sufficient evidence to conclude that Tyer’s conduct was severe.”

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Manning, J., Kanne, J.