Employment – Sex discrimination

Listen to this article

Employment – Sex discrimination

Where an employee complained of a hostile work environment years before filing a violence in the workplace report, summary judgment was improperly granted to the employer.

“Although the City reacted promptly to Hall’s Violence in the Workplace report, the record also shows Hall first raised her concerns about her assignments a few weeks into her new position, not years later. This was met with dismissive allegations that Hall was a troublemaker, and Hall followed with her first EEOC charge. Moreover, Hall complained to the police and her union after the bumping incident, which occurred in February 2004. These measures, all of which preceded the Violence in the Workplace complaint, provided ample information from which a jury could conclude that Hall alerted the City to the perceived hostility and the City tardily responded only after the final complaint. This conclusion is bolstered by the City’s failure to produce a codified sexual harassment policy with steps that Hall failed to follow in complaining about Johnson’s conduct. Id. At 808 (‘While proof that an employer had promulgated an antiharassment policy with complaint procedure is not necessary in every instance as a matter of law, the need for a stated policy suitable to the employment circumstances may appropriately be addressed in anycase when litigating the first element of the defense.’). As such, we find Hall has also created a jury question on this final element of her claim.”

Reversed and Remanded.

11-3279 Hall v. City of Chicago

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Lefkow, J., Flaum, J.

Full Text