Home 5 Articles 5 Technician Who Never Complained Can’t Sue Lab for Supervisor’s Alleged Sex Harassment

Technician Who Never Complained Can’t Sue Lab for Supervisor’s Alleged Sex Harassment

by | Jan 6, 2021 | Articles, Essential, Lab Compliance Advisor, Labs in Court-lca

Case: He dismissed her as a “typical millennial” and “Princess Diana” (Diana happened to be her first name). He asked her why she didn’t wear stiletto heels and low-cut tops. Above all, he constantly (and falsely) referred to her as a lesbian and a “softball player,” a derogatory term for lesbians. But at the end of the day, none of these things that her supervisor allegedly did turned out to be enough for a lab technician to make out a legal case for creating a hostile work environment against the lab. But while dismissing the sex harassment case, the Illinois federal court allowed the lab technician to go to trial on her claim that the supervisor retaliated against her for exercising her Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights. Significance: This was a fairly complex case with a lot of context, most of it involving issues other than sex harassment. The key facts that worked to the lab’s advantage with regard to the sex harassment claim: The lab had a clear and strongly worded sex harassment policy; The technician was good at her job and did productive work; She worked well with the supervisor and while there was some back […]

Case: He dismissed her as a “typical millennial” and “Princess Diana” (Diana happened to be her first name). He asked her why she didn’t wear stiletto heels and low-cut tops. Above all, he constantly (and falsely) referred to her as a lesbian and a “softball player,” a derogatory term for lesbians. But at the end of the day, none of these things that her supervisor allegedly did turned out to be enough for a lab technician to make out a legal case for creating a hostile work environment against the lab. But while dismissing the sex harassment case, the Illinois federal court allowed the lab technician to go to trial on her claim that the supervisor retaliated against her for exercising her Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights. Significance: This was a fairly complex case with a lot of context, most of it involving issues other than sex harassment. The key facts that worked to the lab’s advantage with regard to the sex harassment claim:
  • The lab had a clear and strongly worded sex harassment policy;
  • The technician was good at her job and did productive work;
  • She worked well with the supervisor and while there was some back and forth between, it appeared mutual and mostly playful; and
  • Most important of all, the technician never once went to HR or anybody else to complain about sex harassment.
[Trahanas v. Northwestern Univ., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 241663]  

Subscribe to view Essential

Start a Free Trial for immediate access to this article