CourtCases2010

Wests fsa 76010 sufficient evidence supported

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: med if an appellate court determines that reasonable persons could differ as to propriety of action taken by a trial court. In granting a motion for a new trial, a trial court must articulate reasons for doing so in its order. Sufficient evidence supported jury's verdict finding in favor of former employee on sexual harassment claim; actions of co-worker on former employee's first day of employment, including voicing his disgust to former employee that employer hired a female, and kissing former employee on cheek, which were clearly directed at former employee because of her gender, led to reasonable conclusion that co-worker's subsequent actions were likewise directed at former employee because of her gender, and record was replete with instances where former employee voiced her complaints regarding co-worker's conduct. West's F.S.A. § 760.10(1)(a). Any harassment or other disparate treatment of employee that would not occur but for gender of employee may, if there is a pattern or pervasiveness in conduct, constitute "hostile work environment" sexual harassment; moreover, offensive conduct is not required to include sexual overtones in every instance. West's F.S.A. § 760.10. Former employee established "causal connection" element to establish prima facie case of retaliation for sexual harassment complaint, where both former employee's immediate supervisor and director of human resources were aware of complaints; evidence adduced at trial indicated that even if former employee did not inform supervisor of any conduct of a sexual nature, both supervisor and director, the individuals who discharged former employee, were aware of instances of non-sexual conduct which constituted sexual harassment. West's F.S.A. § 760.10. In order to establish a prima facie retaliation case, plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a statutorily protected expression; (2) an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection between the participation in the protected expression and the adverse action. West's F.S.A. §§ 440.205, 760.10. In order to satisfy the "causal connection" prong of a prima facie retaliation case, a plaintiff must, at a minimum, generally establish that the defendant was actually aware of the protected exp...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online