Advertisement

May 25, 2013

EEOC Wins Jury Verdict of $350,000 for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Victims

Employees at Endoscopic  Microsurgery Associates Harassed or Fired for Rejecting And Complaining About Harassment, Federal Agency Charged

A federal jury has awarded $350,000 in compensatory and  punitive damages to three former employees Endoscopic Microsurgery Associates, a  Baltimore-area medical practice, who were subjected to unwanted sexual advances  by the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer, the U.S.  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Linda Luz, a receptionist for Endoscopic  Microsurgery Associates, P.A. / Mark D. Noar, M.D. & Associates, was  repeatedly subjected to unwanted sexual advances and a sexually hostile work  environment by CEO Dr. Mark Noar and CFO Martin Virga.  After Luz repeatedly rejected the advances,  the medical practice began retaliating against her by issuing to her unwarranted  discipline and rescinding approved leave, which eventually culminated in her  retaliatory termination.  Study coordinator  Jacqueline Huskins similarly experienced unwanted sexual advances from Noar and  Virga, as did nurse Kimberly Hutchinson from Noar.

Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title  VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The  EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement  through its conciliation process.

The Baltimore jury of nine returned a unanimous verdict finding  that the claimants were entitled to compensatory damages in amounts ranging  from $4,000 to $10,000, and awarded each claimant punitive damages in the  amount of $110,000. 

“This verdict is significant because it reminds high-level officials who  function as the employer that their high level does not give them license to abuse  women – they must treat employees as professionals,” said Debra Lawrence,  regional attorney of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office.  

EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney and lead counsel Maria Salacuse added,  “This case emphasizes the necessity of employers having in place meaningful and  enforceable policies guarding against such mistreatment.”

© 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.