The answer to this question, because I’m a lawyer, is “it depends.”
Naturally, of course.
I’m not nearly as articulate as the Third Circuit was in yesterday’s opinion in Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, using words like “cognizable” and “disproportionate adverse impact.” And, even though the Third Circuit sits in Philadelphia, you won’t find local lingo like “old head” or “jawn” anywhere in the opinion.
Although, I’m pretty sure page 6 has a cheez whiz stain on it.
Tuesday’s Disney theme may have been germs and yuck, but we turned the corner on Wednesday.
Today, let’s talk about the employee who claimed sexual harassment because her male co-worker constantly stared at her with an erection — which she subsequently photographed and showed to other co-workers, and all of that morphed into a retaliation claim.
So, basically, this post will be like a sophisticated bar exam question.
Actually, I’m not talking about the drink.
No, the case I’m addressing today has actual sex on the beach. And allegations of sexual harassment and disparate treatment.
It involves an outside sales representative — let’s call her “Plaintiff” — and the son of the company President, during a boat trip in Mallorca, Spain.
Hey, if you ever want to hear some good stories at a lawyer cocktail party, seek out the employment folks. Just sayin’.