This site uses cookies. By continuing, your consent is assumed. Learn more

139.3fm shares

John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment

opinion

Goldberg arguedJoyce S. This appeal presents us with several perturbing issues involving the newly emerging jurisprudence concerning sexual harassment. We must not only enunciate standards to be applied in section 42 U. Additionally, we are asked to consider concepts of qualified immunity under section and municipal liability under both section and Title VII. Finally, we must also evaluate the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Pennsylvania law. Both claim that because of their sex they were harassed by their fellow workers and supervisors.

The harassment allegedly included abusive language, destruction of property and work product, anonymous telephone calls and, eventually, physical injury to Andrews. The section claims and John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were tried to a jury and the Title VII claims to the bench.

gender discrimination and retaliation. See...

The jury found in favor of Andrews and against Philadelphia, Liciardello and Doyle on Andrews' section claim. The jury found in favor of Conn against Philadelphia and Liciardello on Conn's section claims. The jury found in favor of Conn against Liciardello and in favor of Andrews against Liciardello and Doyle on the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court in separate findings entered immediately after the jury verdict found for the defendant Philadelphia on the Title VII claims.

Contributors

Following the verdicts, the plaintiffs moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 e to have the court alter John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment judgment to make it consistent with the jury's verdict and the defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict n. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion, as well as the defendants' motion, with respect to the section judgments against Liciardello and Doyle but granted the defendants' motion and entered judgment n.

Plaintiffs appeal the judgments n. They also appeal the Title VII judgment, arguing that the trial judge misapplied the law and failed to reconcile his decision with the verdict of the jury.