A Pennsylvania federal judge this month, ruling for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, awarded $55,500 in damages and other relief to a private employee who claimed he was discriminated against because he is gay. The case was a test for the agency as it pushes for such protections to be recognized under federal civil rights laws.

The employee's lawsuit, filed by the EEOC in March in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Scott Medical Health Center, was one of the first two the agency took to court to fight against sexual orientation discrimination.

In 2013, the EEOC clarified its position that the scope of sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should include sexual orientation. There are three other pending cases on similar grounds the agency has filed. A suit the EEOC brought against a Maryland company—the complaint was filed simultaneously with the action in Pennsylvania—settled last year.

The EEOC's complaint in Pennsylvania claimed Scott Medical violated federal law by subjecting a gay employee, Dale Massaro, to sex discrimination through “persistent and egregious harassment directed at him.” The suit also alleged Massaro was forced to resign his position when the company's owner refused to protect him from further harassment.

The Pennsylvania ruling showed the agency's commitment to addressing discrimination against LGBT employees, the EEOC said Monday.

“This judgment should send a strong message to all employers that the protections against sexual harassment include sexual orientation,” EEOC Philadelphia district director Kevin Berry said in a statement. “Employers should update their harassment policies to include sexual orientation and take prompt and immediate action to stop any unlawful workplace harassment.”

U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon last November declined to dismiss the case. “That someone can be subjected to a barrage of insults, humiliation, hostility and/or changes to the terms and conditions of their employment, based upon nothing more than the aggressor's view of what it means to be a man or a woman, is exactly the evil Title VII was designed to eradicate,” Bissoon wrote.

Here's a look at what the agency asked for, and what it got, according to Bissoon's findings of fact and her conclusion. Read Bissoon's judgment order here.

Permanent Injunction

The Pennsylvania court said the EEOC proved that an injunction was justified. “The likelihood of future violations may be inferred from past unlawful conduct” and the company “committed an intentional violation of Title VII by subjecting Massaro to a hostile work environment because of his sex and constructively discharging him as a result of its refusal to take action to stop the harassment and correct its work environment,” Bissoon said.

The judge agreed with the EEOC that the company's leadership supported the discrimination and that no training, policy or programs were in place to prevent the violations that occurred.

Compensatory and Punitive Damages

Check. The EEOC had urged the judge to grant damages to Massaro and the court granted the maximum limit on the awards.

Compensatory damages were granted based on the victim's testimony about his sadness and depression that resulted from the alleged treatment at the company, as well as witness testimony that backed up the claims. The emotional distress sparked by the harassment included depression, anxiety, social isolation and significant weight gain.

Punitive damages were also awarded by the court. Bissoon agreed with the EEOC that the company engaged in discriminatory practices for ignoring reports of harassment and “allowing a manager to create and perpetuate a sexually hostile working environment in the face of its obligation to prevent and correct such an environment.” The court found Massaro would have been entitled to a higher reward without the limit on reward, given the facts in the case.

Back Pay

The trial court concluded that the EEOC proved Massaro was entitled to back pay and adopted the agency's calculation, submitted at trial, of $5,500.43. Title VII allows for those considered victims of discrimination to be made whole. The calculation made the assumption that Massaro would have continued to work 38 hours per week for Scott Medical as a telemarketer, earning $418 per week. Interest, using the IRS deficiency rates, was compounded quarterly through the end of the fourth quarter 2017.

Read more: