In the mechanic’s sexual harassment case of Jones v. Needham, the Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a sexual harassment claim based on “quid pro quo” set of facts, and rejected the employer’s position that the required administrative claim did not specifically allege facts of quid pro quo harassment.
In her Law360 article “Takeaways from Mechanic’s 10th Circ. Sex Harassment Suit,” Partner Yvette Davis discussed the importance of this decision and what safeguards employers should implement when dealing with sexual harassment complaints.
“Since the courts have defined two types of sexual harassment, the claimant typically need only check one box for ‘harassment,’” wrote Davis. “The Jones court emphasized that the type of harassment, i.e., quid pro quo or hostile work environment, need not be specifically articulated in the prelawsuit claim in order for the employee to exhaust his/her administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit for ‘harassment.’”
“While exhaustion of remedies is practically effortless for the complaining employee, the need for employers to investigate any type of harassment, however, is not so simple. Whenever an employer receives a claim of harassment, or is made aware that harassment may have occurred or is occurring, an investigation must be launched without delay,” Davis added.