Taking actions that only temporarily improve a harassment victim’s working conditions is not enough to avoid damages in a sexual harassment lawsuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled on May 25.
In Aponte-Rivera v. DHL Solutions Inc. USA, No. 10-1655, a female employee at the company’s Puerto Rican facility complained in 2004 that her supervisor created an “uncomfortable” work site by making sexually suggestive comments and overloading her with work.
The HR department counseled both parties, but the situation did not improve much after the female employee returned from a leave of absence and started working for a new supervisor. He harassed her also. Then, after she returned from a second leave of absence, the new supervisor renewed the harassment. The female employee filed another complaint with HR but eventually resigned a couple of months later.
A jury awarded the female employee $350,000 in emotional distress damages. The First Circuit affirmed, saying that while the issue was a close one, a reasonable jury could find that DHL did not prove it reasonably responded to the complaints.
Here’s the key conclusion:
“A reasonable jury could find that Aponte availed herself of DHL’s corrective opportunities without experiencing a lasting improvement in her work situation. She complained in writing on two separate occasions, and testified that she ultimately had to quit her job in order to avoid the hostile situation.”
