Sexual Harassment Case Ends in $5.5 Million Verdict

Quick Hits

• A jury in federal court recently awarded a former employee $5.5 million in her sexual harassment and retaliation case.
• A female security guard alleged that her boss sexually harassed and assaulted her, and that the company ended her employment after she complained to the company’s owner.
• Anti-harassment provisions in federal, state, and local laws may vary in scope and application.

Background

A former security guard sued C&M Defense Group, which now operates as Global Security Management Team, claiming that her supervisor, the vice president of operations at the time, subjected her to unwanted sexual comments, repeated sexual advances, and threats of physical violence after she rejected his advances in 2022. She claimed her supervisor made sexually explicit remarks and asked her to go to a strip club and a hotel with him—which she refused to do. A month later, she claimed he pushed her against a wall, groped her, and unzipped his pants at a worksite. She said he offered her financial favors and a promotion in exchange for sex. She used a recording device to record that incident.

After she reported several incidents to the company owner and provided the company with the recording she made, the company reassigned her to a different jobsite and stopped giving her hours to work. She filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In May 2024, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination, finding that there was reasonable cause to conclude that the company subjected the employee to a hostile work environment based on her sex and sexual orientation, and that it discharged her in retaliation for reporting harassment.

The federal lawsuit alleged that the company willfully failed to prevent or stop the harassment, and that it wrongfully retained the plaintiff’s recording device.

Antiharassment Protections

Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal for employers with 15 or more employees to allow sexual harassment at the workplace or fail to investigate when they know, or should know, that sexual harassment has occurred. A hostile work environment requires that the harassment is severe or pervasive. It also is unlawful for employers to retaliate against a worker who reports harassment or participates in an investigation. Many states have laws requiring similar—or more stringent—protections.

Under the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, arbitration agreements cannot cover disputes involving sexual harassment or sexual assault.

In this case, to be entitled to an award of punitive damages under Title VII, the plaintiff had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that C&M Defense Group acted with either malice or reckless indifference toward her protected rights. As instructed, the jury considered factors such as whether the company engaged in a pattern of discrimination or retaliation toward its employees, whether the company acted spitefully or malevolently, whether the company showed blatant disregard for legal obligations, and whether the company failed to investigate reports of discrimination and take corrective action.

The court told the jury that the company failed to preserve evidence, so that evidence should be assumed to be unfavorable to the company. Specifically, the evidence was texts between the company’s vice president, chief operating officer, and vice president of operations.

Next Steps

This case shows how failing to keep a workplace free of harassment and retaliation can lead to huge penalties, along with potential harm to the organization’s brand and public image. The case could be appealed to a federal circuit court.

Employers may wish to review their written policies to ensure they clearly state sexual harassment, hostile work environments, and retaliation will not be tolerated. They may wish to review all arbitration agreements to ensure they exclude claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Employers should consider providing anti-harassment training to supervisors and employees, using programs that provide specific examples of what is and what is not harassment.  

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Employment Law, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, and Georgia blogs as new information becomes available. Ogletree Deakins recently posted a podcast entitled “Inside the Exclusive: Highly Sensitive Sexual Harassment and Assault Investigations.”

Natalie N. Turner is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Atlanta office.

This article was co-authored by Leah J. Shepherd, who is a writer in Ogletree Deakins’ Washington, D.C., office.

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts