Although this conduct occurred on an egg farm, this is not a story about chickens. It is a story about pigs.
National Food Corporation, a major supplier of eggs to the Pacific Northwestern and Midwestern United States and East Asia. It owned several isolated egg farms that each contained separate hen houses. The farms manager hired one person to work each of the henhouses in isolation. Then, he took advantage of the isolation and his power by demanding sexual favors from one of the woman on a daily basis as a condition of employment. This lasted seven years.
Because of the pervasive nature of the sexual conduct and the fact that demand for sexual conduct was a condition of employment, this type of conduct gives rise to claims of both hostile work environment sexual harassment and quid pro quo sexual harassment. “quid pro quo harassment occurs when an employer either explicitly or implicitly makes submission to sexual conduct a term or condition of employment or when submission to, or rejection of, such conduct forms the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals.” Sheffield Village v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm’n, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 2381, citing Ohio Admin. Code 4112-5-05(J)(1)(a)-(b) On the other hand, a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim occurs when a work atmosphere is so hostile to a protected class of individuals that it alters the conditions of the employment for individuals of that class. See Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. (1993), 510 U.S. 17, 114 S. Ct. 367.
Because this case involved the conduct of a supervisor, National Food became immediately liable for the conduct of its supervisor. “In such an action for quid pro quo sexual harassment, the employer will be held strictly liable for the misconduct of its supervisory employees.” King v. Enron Capital & Trade Res. Corp., 2002 Ohio 1620.
To make matters worse, when co-workers complained about the sexual harassment to higher management, they were fired or forced to quit through retaliatory conduct. As such, National Food also faced liability for its own conduct for failing to address and protect its employees from sexual harassment. This month, National Food paid $650,000 to settle the female worker’s claims. The average salary of an egg farm worker, including managers, is $26,000. As such, the settlement represents about 34 years of income to the victim of this horrible sexual harassment.
Although this conduct occurred on an egg farm, this is not a story about chickens. It is a story about pigs.
National Food Corporation, a major supplier of eggs to the Pacific Northwestern and Midwestern United States and East Asia. It owned several isolated egg farms that each contained separate hen houses. The farms manager hired one person to work each of the henhouses in isolation. Then, he took advantage of the isolation and his power by demanding sexual favors from one of the woman on a daily basis as a condition of employment. This lasted seven years.
Because of the pervasive nature of the sexual conduct and the fact that demand for sexual conduct was a condition of employment, this type of conduct gives rise to claims of both hostile work environment sexual harassment and quid pro quo sexual harassment. “quid pro quo harassment occurs when an employer either explicitly or implicitly makes submission to sexual conduct a term or condition of employment or when submission to, or rejection of, such conduct forms the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals.” Sheffield Village v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm’n, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 2381, citing Ohio Admin. Code 4112-5-05(J)(1)(a)-(b) On the other hand, a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim occurs when a work atmosphere is so hostile to a protected class of individuals that it alters the conditions of the employment for individuals of that class. See Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. (1993), 510 U.S. 17, 114 S. Ct. 367.
Because this case involved the conduct of a supervisor, National Food became immediately liable for the conduct of its supervisor. “In such an action for quid pro quo sexual harassment, the employer will be held strictly liable for the misconduct of its supervisory employees.” King v. Enron Capital & Trade Res. Corp., 2002 Ohio 1620.
To make matters worse, when co-workers complained about the sexual harassment to higher management, they were fired or forced to quit through retaliatory conduct. As such, National Food also faced liability for its own conduct for failing to address and protect its employees from sexual harassment. This month, National Food paid $650,000 to settle the female worker’s claims. The average salary of an egg farm worker, including managers, is $26,000. As such, the settlement represents about 34 years of income to the victim of this horrible sexual harassment.
If you even think that your employment rights have been violated or that you might need an employment lawyer, then call the right attorney to schedule a free and confidential consultation at 866-797-6040. Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm is dedicated to protecting employees’ rights and solving employment disputes.
Disclaimer:
The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact an attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use and access to this website or any of the links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.