Word: ellerth
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Burlington Industries v. Ellerth asks if unwanted sexual advances constitute sexual harassment in the event that those advances result in no tangible job detriment. Burlington Industries employed Kimberly Ellerth, whose supervisor was Theodore Slowik. Ellerth accuses Slowik of unwanted advances, such as telling her to wear shorter skirts and to loosen up and have some "fun." Ellerth also alleges Slowik implied he would demote or dismiss her unless she complied...
...Ellerth altered neither her taste in dress nor her sociability. And despite the alleged implied threats, she suffered no tangible detriment, but received promotions and pay raises. Nonetheless, she quit her job and sued Burlington for not sanctioning Slowik. Last summer, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals sympathized with Ellerth, essentially ruling that one does not need the quo in order to prove quid pro quo sexual harassment...
...Ellerth's case should sound familiar. The spark to our present debate was Paula Jones's sexual harassment case against President Clinton. Jones made Ellerth's argument, that unwanted advances with no tangible detriment still constitute sexual harassment. Unfortunately for Jones, District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright disagreed with the Seventh Circuit: Judge Wright unceremoniously dismissed Jones's case earlier this month, holding that it was groundless without proof of detriment...
...persuaded Judge Susan Webber Wright that Paula Jones' damages claim has no merit, but Janet Reno is not convinced. The Supreme Court today hears an appeal with direct bearing on the Jones case -- and the Justice Department has weighed in on the same side as Paula's camp. Kimberley Ellerth's suit against Burlington Industries was rejected by a lower court on the grounds that even though she might have suffered sexual harassment, she had not shown that she suffered any form of retaliation...
...Justice is backing Ellerth's appeal, which runs against the argument of the President's private attorney," says TIME White House correspondent Jay Branegan. "The Justice Department is trying to counter what it perceives to be an anti-plaintiff drift in the courts." Needless to say, this would be one administration victory unlikely to get the boss lighting up a stogie...