{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


sexual_harassment_____prima_ - Send to BROWN CHELSEA...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
106JH3 Send to: BROWN, CHELSEA CORNELL UNIVERSITY - SILR 232 IVES HALL ITHACA, NY 14853-3901 Time of Request: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 21:29:16 EST Client ID/Project Name: Number of Lines: 758 Job Number: 1861:153158151 Research Information Service: More Like This Search Print Request: Current Document: 2 Source: US Courts of Appeals Cases, Combined Search Terms: "sexual harassment" , "prima facie case" , "protected activity" , termination , manager , terminating , retaliation , score , re-audit , sexual , unw. .. 2 of 100 DOCUMENTS Caution As of: Apr 22, 2009 SUSAN FARRELL, Appellant v. PLANTERS LIFESAVERS COMPANY; NABISCO, INC. No. 98-6410 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 206 F.3d 271 ; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 3243 ; 82 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 464 ; 78 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40,041 September 16, 1999, Argued March 3, 2000, Filed PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. (D.C. Civil No. 97-cv-01059). District Judge: Hon. Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. DISPOSITION: Reversed District Court's order granting summary judg- ment in favor of Planters on Farrell's federal claims, and remanded for fur- ther proceedings. Affirmed District Court's ruling precluding Farrell's state law breach of contract claim. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant employee appealed from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey which dismissed her re- taliation and quid pro quo sexual har- assment claims under Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. §
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
2000e et seq. , and her state contract law claim. OVERVIEW: Appellee employer recruited appellant to be senior manager of packaging services. After appellee promised to purchase appellant's out- of-state home, appellant relocated to appellee's plant. During a business trip seven months later, one of ap- pellee's senior managers made sexual advances toward appellant, which she rejected. Less than a month later, ap- pellee, claiming to eliminate appel- lant's position, terminated her. She sued and the district court granted appellee summary judgment. Appellant, arguing error, appealed, asserting her termination was an impermissible act of retaliation and an act of quid pro quo sexual harassment. The court re- versed summary judgment on appellant's federal claims but affirmed dismissal of her state law contract claim. The court found ample evidence from which to infer a causal connection between appellant's rejection of appellee's manager's advance and her subsequent termination to enable her to make a prima facie case for both claims. OUTCOME: Summary judgments of federal claims were reversed because appellant substantiated a causal connection between the relatively close timing between appellant's rejection of sexu- al advances and her termination, in- cluding appellee's inconsistent reas- ons for appellant's termination. Dis- missal of appellant's state law con- tract claim was proper because appel- lant was an "at-will" employee. LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 21

sexual_harassment_____prima_ - Send to BROWN CHELSEA...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online