Question

Scenario: Between 1985 and 1990, while attending college, Beth Ann Faragher worked part-time and during the summers as an ocean lifeguard for the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of Boca Raton. Ms. Faragher worked for three immediate supervisors during this period: Bill Terry, David Silverman, and Robert Gordon.

Ms. Faragher resigned in June 1990 and brought a Title VII sexual harassment suit against the City in 1992. She alleged a sexually hostile atmosphere because of “uninvited and offensive touching,” lewd remarks, and Mr. Silverman’s comment, “Date me or clean the toilets for a year.” Ms. Faragher had not complained to higher management, and the lifeguards had no significant contact with higher city officials. Two months before Ms. Faragher’s resignation, a former lifeguard, Nancy E. Wanchew, wrote to the City’s personnel director complaining about Mr. Terry and Mr. Silverman’s harassment of female lifeguards.

Should the City be held liable?

Does it matter that Ms. Faragher asked only for nominal damages, attorney’s fees, and costs? [Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)]

Answer 1

The City should be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees who created hostile environment for the plaintiff by repetitive verbal and physical advances that were of grossly sexual nature. The action was so visible and tangible for the lifeguards and others, that the City must have known about it, even without receiving a formal complaint. Since it is evident from the fact, that there was no formal contact between the lifeguard and higher city officials, it provided opportunity to the employees like Silverman and Terry to have their was as they liked. It can be said the City did not create avenues for its employees or agents for raising voice against possible harassment and thus failed to make provisions to prevent or correct such behaviour of superiors towards female employees, something which holds it liable for the hostile environment created by its employees.

If the plaintiff did not ask for exorbitant damages under the lawsuit, and settled for nominal damages and other incidental expenses, it does not dilute the employer's liability to prevent the creation of a hostile environment to the vulnerable employees and correct its procedures to avoid repetition of any such incident in future.