The Ohio Supreme Court on June 21 reinstated a $1,648, 750 jury verdict for a male employee, ruling that his male supervisor's harassment was not gender-based but nevertheless amounted to intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff, a cook who prepared thousands of pounds of meat at a time, complained to his supervisor in 1995 that there were not enough bins for the finished product, and commented "one of these days I'm going to blow". The plaintiff's supervisor, in the presence of his co-workers, commented, "Hey, you can b*** me..." Plaintiff complained to his supervisor about his remarks, and was told if he did not like it, he could quit. Plaintiff then complained to a vice president, who gave plaintiff's supervisor a written warning. Plaintiff subsequently received a warning from his supervisor that he was doing a poor job of cleaning, and the harassment continued until plaintiff resigned in 1996 after making repeated requests for a transfer.

Supreme Court Lets Stand Victory For Female Engineer on Pay Bias Claim

The United States Supreme Court June 29 let stand an appeals court decision reinstating a jury verdict for a female engineer who received lower merit raises than a male co-worker in violation of the Equal Pay Act. The Court explained, there was ample evidence that the employer failed to show it had an organized, structured, and systematically administered merit pay system based on predetermined criteria as required under the Equal Pay Act, which rendered the merit system non-existent. Plaintiff was the only woman among 20 engineers. When plaintiff rebuffed a senior engineer who expected a romantic relationship, her next evaluation fell from "competent and dependable" to "acceptable". Upon hiring an Hispanic male, plaintiff's supervisor commented that the man's minority status enabled him to avoid hiring a woman. Plaintiff subsequently received a lower evaluation and merit increase than the Hispanic employee and was not given the same opportunity to apply for a promotion to senior engineer was the Hispanic employee, who ultimately was promoted.

Justices Refuse to Disturb $2.5 Million Award To Dillard Worker Demoted After Back Injury

The United States Supreme Court declined to disturb a $2.5 million award to a 64-year-old sales manager who was constructively discharged after injuring her back and filing a worker's compensation claim. Plaintiff, an areas sales manager for 19 years strained her back while moving a large table. When plaintiff returned to work prior to her doctor's release, she was assigned to an entry level position at a 40 percent cut in wages and given the choice of keeping the job or resigning. Plaintiff accepted the position because she was self-supporting and needed medical benefits. Plaintiff subsequently resigned due to the humiliation she experienced. In justifying the punitive damages award, the Court explained that the employer's request that plaintiff return to work before she was medically released and then punishing her with a demotion and salary cut was a direct violation of public policy.