May 23, 2012

EEOC Obtains $451,000 Jury Verdict Against Boh Brothers Construction Co. For Male-On-Male Sexual Harassment

Ironworker Abused on I-10 Project, Federal Agency Charged

NEW ORLEANS – A federal jury has awarded a former employee of Boh Bros. Construction Co., L.L.C. $451,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

Following a two-and-a-half-day trial, the jury awarded Kerry Woods damages for the sexual harassment claim against the major construction firm, including $250,000 in punitive damages and $200,000 for emotional distress.

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that a superintendent harassed and taunted Woods, who worked for the company as an ironworker, by engaging in verbal abuse and taunting gestures of a sexual nature, and by exposing himself. The harassment took place on the I-10 Twin Span project over Lake Pontchartrain between Slidell and New Orleans, La. The EEOC presented evidence at trial that Woods’s supervisor harassed him because he thought he was feminine and did not conform to the supervisor’s gender stereotypes of a typical “rough ironworker.”

The EEOC’s lawsuit further claimed that the company retaliated against Woods after he reported the superintendent’s harassment. Woods was transferred to another location, where he was paid less, and then “laid off,” supposedly because there was less work available at the new location.

Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (EEOC v. Boh Brothers Construction Company, LLC (Civil Action No. 09-6460) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“All workers, male and female, are entitled to earn a living free from harassment based on sex or sex stereotypes,” said EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez. “The jury's verdict signals to employers the importance of having robust sexual harassment policies and training in place, including in predominantly male workplaces.”

The EEOC established that Boh Brothers had no policy that defined or specifically prohibited sexual harassment. The superintendent testified that before this lawsuit, he had never received training on sexual harassment.

“The jury’s verdict in this case vindicates the public interest and will benefit Boh Brothers’ employees,” said Jim Sacher, the EEOC’s regional attorney for the Houston District Office, which oversees all litigation in Louisiana. “This case demonstrates the failure of this company to prevent and properly respond to a serious matter for the construction industry: male-on-male sexual harassment by a supervisor and under isolated working conditions.”

Woods said of the verdict, “I am so grateful that the EEOC worked so hard for me, and that the jury paid so much attention to the evidence. I knew it wasn’t right that the company should be able to treat people this way. No one should have to put up with that kind of abuse day after day.” Woods testified during trial that he had pursued this case for so many years to see justice done.

This case is the third sexual harassment trial victory for the EEOC this year. The other two were EEOC v. Mid-American Specialties, in which a Memphis jury returned a verdict of $1.5 million, and EEOC v. Paul's Big M, in which a Syracuse jury awarded $1.25 million.

New Orleans-based Boh Brothers is a major construction contractor that operates in the New Orleans and Gulf South areas. According to company information, Boh Brothers employs more than 1,500 people on many projects, including publicly funded post-Katrina rebuilding, repair and expansion projects.

The EEOC was represented by trial attorneys Gregory T. Juge and Tanya L. Goldman.

© Copyright 2012 - U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

About the Author

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Most employers with at least 15...

800-669-4000

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.