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.
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.
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.
Amateur cock gallery
Finally, they appeal the earlier entry of a directed verdict in favor of the John Doe defendant. The defendants cross-appeal, arguing that Liciardello and Doyle were protected by their qualified immunity and, thus, judgments n.
We affirm in part and vacate in part. AID is an extremely busy
John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment of the Philadelphia Police Department which investigates vehicular accidents involving property or personal injury. Officers in AID are expected to investigate thoroughly an accident and file a report describing the accident and its causes.
AID is broken down into several squads. Each squad operates independently and works different shifts, under the authority of separate sergeants, though all are under the ultimate authority of the same commanding officer. At her request, the Police Department transferred plaintiff Andrews to AID in February and assigned her to the squad under the direct supervision of defendant Doyle.
Plaintiff Conn was assigned to a different squad in the Division in May When the plaintiffs came to AID, males dominated the Division and each plaintiff was the only woman in her squad. Prior to this litigation, they had never met. According to the plaintiffs, the AID squadroom was charged with sexism. They both claim that women regularly were referred to in an offensive and obscene manner, and that they personally were addressed by the obscenities.
Other women in the Division also confirmed the male use of obscenities in referring to women. Although there was evidence that such language was commonplace in police quarters, there was also testimony that such language was not ordinary, and Conn, a twelve-year police veteran, went as far as to say that she "had never been called some of the names that [she] was called in AID.
There was also evidence of pornographic pictures of women displayed in the locker room on "John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment" inside of a locker which most often was kept open. Plaintiffs contend that the language and the pictures embarrassed, humiliated and harassed them. Other female officers at AID expressed similar reactions to the pictures and language.
The office setup of AID enabled both Liciardello and Doyle to see the pictures and hear the language. Andrews, a black female, joined the police force in and went on active duty as a patrol officer in February in the Fourth Police District.
During her time in the Fourth District she consistently received satisfactory performance
John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment, though her supervisor says that she required more direct supervision than other members of the squad. Toward the end of her assignment she lodged a complaint against her supervisor for racial discrimination. The charges were ultimately found to be groundless. In Februarypursuant to a transfer application, she was transferred into AID.
Andrews had some difficulty with the work at AID, often making mistakes in conducting investigations and filing reports. Sergeant Doyle found himself compelled to send many case reports back to her for extensive corrections. The parties differ over how severe the mistakes were, with Andrews claiming that they were simply mistakes of inexperience and later harassment, and the defendants claiming that the mistakes were extreme.
Andrews also had organizational problems; her files were often disorganized and she "John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment" misplaced, forgot, and lost police department equipment. On two instances she even
John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment her weapon. Similarly, against division policy, she on one occasion mistakenly brought six case files home with her on vacation.
Nonetheless, she received overall performance evaluations of satisfactory in both of her yearly evaluations at AID, though in her evaluation, AID graded her unsatisfactory in the categories of quality of work, work habits, and promotional potential. One particular form of difficulty which plagued Andrews was the loss of her case files. There is no direct evidence of how or why those cases were lost. Andrews contends that her coworkers stole or hid her cases in an attempt to harass her.
The defendants claim that she lost the files herself as a result of her carelessness and disorganization.
Because she had to reconstruct the lost cases, Andrews fell increasingly behind in her work. The Division, in an attempt to assist Andrews, gave her additional training and guidance. Sergeant Doyle designed a flow chart to track her cases.
Lieutenant Viola Mitchell, a black female superior officer in AID, also gave her a great deal of assistance. Mitchell advised Andrews to keep all of her notes in steno pads and to retain duplicates so if any additional files disappeared it would take less effort to reproduce the report.
After these steps were taken the loss of case files
John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment, but further destruction of Andrews' work product followed.
She claims that one steno pad in which she had been taking
John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment disappeared from the top of her desk, and one after she had given it to Sergeant Doyle during an investigation.
Additionally, several cases which Doyle had returned to her for correction were scribbled on while they were on her desk. Later, seven case files on her desk were ripped. Again, it was never determined who removed the steno pads or destroyed the case files. Andrews further claims that the male officers refused to assist her in her work, further hindering her efforts, although they would often help each other. She says that they completely ignored her and alienated her.
Also, she claims that Doyle would not take her off the rotating assignment wheel, and thus give her a lighter case load in order to catch up, although he often took male officers "off the wheel" when they fell behind. Eventually, Doyle did take her "off the wheel" for a day, but then nearly immediately after, he assigned her to a complicated "fatal" case, which she feels should have been assigned to another officer who was also "off the wheel. Andrews also experienced some vandalism of her personal property.
Her car was thrice
John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment while parked in the AID parking lot. On one occasion the tires were slashed; at other times the car was scratched and the windshield wipers removed. However, on the same date that Andrews' tires were slashed, the tires of a male officer in another division also were slashed. Additionally, the same John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment that her case files were ripped somebody poured soda into her typewriter, forcing her to have it repaired.
Finally, someone ripped the cover off her Motor Vehicle Code book, and her appointment book, which she needed to keep track of investigations and court dates, disappeared.
She made complaints about each of these incidents but they were not investigated. Andrews' problems did not end at the workplace. When she returned home she says she was haunted by anonymous phone calls. These calls were made during two periods of time: According to Andrews' daughter's testimony, during one of these calls she heard someone say "Yoh, sarge" in the background. During others, the caller told her that her mother was sleeping with Conn and that " [t]hose bitches ain't getting no money because they think they trying to get money but they not going to get none.
The most egregious incident occurred when a lime substance was placed inside of Andrews' shirt. She had several articles of clothing in her locker in the women's locker room.
She testified that when she put on one of the shirts, her back was severely burned by what was later determined to be a lime substance.
3Although the EEOC considered a...
She, along with Doyle and another sergeant, eventually found additional lime on the other clothing in her locker and on the locker door. Again, it is undetermined who put the lime in her locker and on her clothing. An Internal Affairs Division IAD investigation determined that it is unlikely that a male officer could have done it because
John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment the likelihood of detection of a male in the women's locker room.
Andrews claims, though, that both male and female officers used the women's locker room. Following the shirt incident, Andrews was placed on injured duty status.
provided by Sherlock Holmes movies...
Four days later, she failed to appear in court as scheduled. However, on that same day, she went to "John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment" to file a complaint about the shirt incident. Subsequently, the AID commanding officer disciplined her for failing to appear in court. Andrews also contends
John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment Doyle acted toward her in a sexually suggestive manner. She claims that he spent an inordinate amount of time at her desk, something confirmed by Mitchell, and that he breathed heavily down her neck and spoke to her in seductive tones about her and his personal lives.
Doyle claims that he spent a lot of time with her because she needed a great deal of supervision. He also claims that his "seductive tone" was nothing more than a hushed tone used so others in the unit would not hear him criticizing Andrews. She also says that lewd pictures were posted on the walls and that she was embarrassed by pornographic pictures placed in her personal desk drawer.
She also specifically described salacious, sexist terms addressed to her by her male coworkers. Debra Ann Conn, a white female, joined the police force in and graduated from the Police Academy in She had several police assignments prior to AID.
She consistently received satisfactory reviews and also received several commendations. During her assignment to the Narcotics Division, she was seriously injured while attempting to make an undercover drug deal.
John sherlock eeoc sexual harassment in none of her past assignments did she have any problem getting along with male officers. Finally, they appeal the earlier entry of a directed verdict in favor of the John Doe.
one, according to Mitchell, where "not even Sherlock Holmes could function. Conn claimed causes of action for sexual discrimination under Title VII, denial misled by the EEOC Guideline concerning sexual harassment, 29 C.F.R. Sec. Earlier this summer, in writing about reference information for bad employees (I call them "the Axis of Evil"), I mentioned employment.
3Although the EEOC considered a sexual harassment allegation based on the “Office of the Attorney General, Dept.
of Justice, John Ashcroft.