Ohio Supreme Court Holds that Employees’ Noncompete Agreements Transfer to Surviving Company after Merger
October 19, 2012Charles Smith Named Among “The Best Lawyers in America” for 2013
November 8, 2012The Tenth District Court of Appeals has again confirmed that when evaluating claims of sexual harassment based upon allegations of a hostile work environment, the conduct of the defendants does not necessarily have to involve sexual advances, comments about the Plaintiff’s sex, or incidents with clear sexual motivation. Camp v. Star Leasing Co., (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 2012), No. 11AP-977. According to the Court, harassing conduct that is simply abusive, with no sexual element, can support a claim for a hostile environment if it is directed at the plaintiff because of his or her sex. The critical issue, according to the Court, is whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not so exposed. In other words, the offensive conduct of the coworker or manager does not have to involve any particular comments about the sex of the plaintiff or be directed at the plaintiff in a sexual manner. The abusive conduct only has to be motivated by sexual discrimination.
In the Camp case, evidence of a prolonged history of abusive language, conduct and treatment by a male manager against the Plaintiff was presented. In affidavits from the plaintiff and other coworkers, the plaintiff established that a new manager hired to work at the branch where she was employed treated her in a degrading and humiliating manner throughout the time he acted as her supervisor. For instance, on several occasions the plaintiff indicated that the supervisor required her to stop whatever she was doing, turn her chair around to face him, put her hands in her lap, and look him in the eye whenever he spoke to her. The manager did not require male employees to act the same way.
After discovery was completed, the defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court granted the Motion indicating that there was no evidence of any abusive or insulting behavior towards the plaintiff that specifically mentioned or commented upon her sex. On appeal, however, the Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and sent the matter back for trial. Employers should take notice of the Camp decision for several key reasons. Just because a supervisor does not direct abusive and rude conduct towards an individual in a sexual manner or by using sexual innuendo does not mean that the supervisor is not engaging in unlawful conduct. Problems arise if the supervisor’s abusive conduct is directed only at female employees. If similar conduct is not directed towards others outside the protected class on a general or random basis, then a viable claim for sexual harassment can exist.
