Advertisement

May 22, 2013

Employers Can be Held Liable for Failing to Protect Employees From Sexual Harassment Based on Sexual Orientation

In a unanimous decision due to be published on May 15, the Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that employers can be held liable for failing to protect employees from harassment based upon sexual orientation. 

In Patino v. Birken Manufacturing Company, a former employee of the jet engine component maker Birken Manufacturing, Co. accused the company of failing to take reasonable steps to prevent his coworkers from harassing him based on his sexual orientation over a period of many years.  The state’s highest court rejected the employer’s argument that hostile work environment claims are limited to sexual harassment cases.  Importantly, the decision appears to be the first supreme court decision from any state to expressly hold that harassment based on sexual orientation is actionable to the same extent as sexual harassment or racial harassment.  The court also rejected the company’s claim that the jury’s award of $94,500 in damages was too high.

Employers in all states should take notice of this significant decision.  Connecticut is one of 20 states, along with the District of Columbia, whose anti-discrimination laws cover sexual orientation.

©2013 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Jack S. Gearan represents businesses and individuals in a wide variety of civil litigation in state and federal courts and in alternative dispute resolution proceedings. Jack has experience in all phases of commercial litigation including trial and appellate practice. His practice concentrates on business and commercial law, including contract, business tort, real estate disputes, disputes involving closely held corporations and employment disputes. Jack also represents individuals and corporations in SEC investigations and enforcement proceedings.

617.310.5225

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.