In January 2013 we first reported on Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., where the Third Circuit reversed the District Court and found that hat permanency is not required to establish a continuing violation theory of sexual harassment, finding that incidents which occurred outside the 300 day period of time from which the Plaintiff filed an EEOC Charge could support a sexual harassment case. Now on remand, the District Court has denied a motion for summary judgment on hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims and found that the Plaintiff’s claims may proceed to trial under a continuing violation theory. See Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64641(M.D. Pa. May 7, 2013( Caputo, J.).
In Mandel the Plaintiff, an Inside Sales and Customer Service Coordinator, demonstrated that she was a victim of sex discrimination and sexual harassment throughout her employment which the District court found to be severe and pervasive because males asked her questions about her sex life and sexual orientation, asked her out on dates, commented that her legs were “tan and smooth,” told her that she was “sitting on a gold mine” and “foolish not to use [her] assets,” told her that they fantasized about her, told her that it was “a shame” that she would “stoop to” taking time off for gynecological surgery, and called her names such as “bitch,” “female,” “toots,” “missy,” and “woman.” These incidents occurred soon after the Plaintiff employee as hired, continued until she left employment and occurred multiple times per week.
In Mandel the Court also found that the employer could be liable regardless of the fact that many of the perpetrators were not supervisors because there was no training on sexual harassment, equal opportunity employment, or discrimination and the sexual harassment included some members of upper-level management.
For more information on sexual harassment and Abramson Employment Law see http://www.job-discrimination.com/lawyer-attorney-2130161.html.