303 See Reed v. MBNA Mktg. 2009) (stating that an worker shouldn’t necessarily be anticipated to complain after the primary or second incident of comparatively minor harassment and that an worker is not required to report “individual incidents which can be revealed to be harassment only in the context of additional, later incidents, and that only within the aggregate come to represent a pervasively hostile work environment”); Reed v. MBNA Mktg. 2018) (concluding that a jury might find that the plaintiff’s failure to report harassment by her supervisor was not unreasonable the place, amongst different issues, her working situations worsened after she asserted herself in the past, the supervisor warned her that she could not trust the individuals to whom she was required to report the harassment, and the employer had recognized of the supervisor’s prior misconduct but “merely slapped him on the wrist”); Johnson v. West, 218 F.3d 725, 732 (7th Cir.
2018) (“While the coverage underlying Faragher-Ellerth places the onus on the harassed employee to report her harasser, and would fault her for not calling out this conduct in order to prevent it, a jury could conclude that the employee’s non-reporting was understandable, maybe even reasonable. 13 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2009) (concluding that a trier of fact might find the plaintiff’s failure to report the supervisor’s racial harassment cheap, given the plaintiff’s testimony that two other employees suffered retaliation after complaining about harassment by the identical supervisor). Eight (S.D. Ga. Feb. 13, 2009) (holding that the plaintiff may introduce proof of ignored harassment complaints to indicate that her failure to make use of the union grievance course of was cheap); see also Minarsky v. Susquehanna Cnty., 895 F.3d 303, 313 n.12 (3d Cir. 680, 686 (M.D.N.C. 1997) (holding that a short lived company may be liable for harassment at a client’s office the place the employee complained to the short-term agency and the non permanent agency made no investigation into or try to remedy the state of affairs). 2003) (concluding that a jury might discover that the seventeen-yr-outdated complainant didn’t act unreasonably in failing to report a sexual assault the place her supervisor threatened to have her fired if she complained and he boasted that his father was “really good friends” with the owner); Mota v. Univ.
2021) (denying abstract judgment and concluding the plaintiff’s proffered evidence demonstrated she “was below a credible risk of retaliation” that alleviated her responsibility to report the harassment); Minarsky, 895 F.3d at 314 (“If a plaintiff’s genuinely held, subjective perception of potential retaliation from reporting her harassment appears to be effectively-based, and a jury might discover that this perception is objectively affordable, the trial courtroom should not find that the defendant has proven the second Faragher-Ellerth element as a matter of law.”); EEOC v. U.S. 8 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2021) (holding that there have been materials issues of reality relating to whether or not the plaintiff unreasonably didn’t avail herself of preventive or corrective alternatives, where she feared being fired if she complained about her supervisor; the harasser considered himself as “untouchable” because he was a supervisor and cop; and the human assets supervisor was already aware of the harassment however did not take any motion, main the plaintiff to believe that a complaint could be futile). 9 (E.D. Pa. May 28, 2021) (concluding that an affordable jury might find that the employee’s concern of retaliation was objectively reasonable based mostly on evidence that the harasser “frequently threatened female employees by telling them that he might hack their computers, view their communications, and that he had cameras throughout the office”; requested female workers to spy on each other and had his sister eavesdrop on them; and had told different feminine employees he would have them fired for being a “walking lawsuit”); Kanish v. Crawford Area Transp.
2014) (noting that the employee’s response to harassment was not necessarily unreasonable even when “20/20 hindsight” suggests that she “could have avoided” among the hurt). Earlier within the interview, Stern agreed with Anderson’s opinion in the documentary that the discharge of the intercourse tape had harmed her career, though it might have been a boost for her rocker husband. Research indicates that sexually appealing content material, including imagery, is often used to form or alter the patron’s notion of a brand, even if it is indirectly related to the product or service being advertised. Cir. 2009) (second prong of affirmative defense glad the place an affordable worker in the plaintiff’s position would have used the employer’s complaint process yet the plaintiff as an alternative posted the sexual harassment coverage on her office door and instructed her pal that she was being harassed). 2001) (stating evidence that the employer has ignored or resisted comparable complaints could possibly be sufficient to excuse an employee’s failure to make use of the employer’s complaint procedure); Mancuso v. City of Atlantic City, 193 F. Supp. 2001) (holding that the employee’s failure to report harassment primarily based on hypothesis that complaints can be ignored was not cheap). 2009) (concluding that a jury could have determined that the plaintiff’s failure to report sexual harassment by her supervisor was not unreasonable, in part, because of the proof of a close relationship between the harasser and officials designated to just accept complaints); Shields v. Fed.