In an empty stockroom, a male foreman attempted to intimidate a female employee by grabbing her in a bear hug and frightening her. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that this incident was best described as the foreman’s retaliation against the employee who had previously filed complaints about what she perceived as sexually harassing conduct. Therefore, the employee could not use the stockroom incident to justify what was ultimately an untimely filing of charges alleging a sexually hostile work environment. ( Heuer v. Weil-McLain , 7th Cir.)
Approximately a year before the stockroom incident, the foreman allegedly groped and kissed the unwilling employee. This behavior ceased after the two were placed on two different shifts. The employee later filed charges against the foreman regarding his previous conduct and the sexually hostile environment that it created. Unfortunately, she filed her charges over 300 days after the foreman’s conduct had ended. It was a year after the conduct ended when the foreman surprised the employee in the stockroom. The stockroom incident was the only incident within the 300-day limitations period.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
