Case Study:
Showalter v. Allison Reed Group, Inc. 767 F. Supp. 1205 (D.R.I. 1991)
Two male employees allege sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because their manager forced them to engage in sexual activities with his secretary by threatening them with the loss of their jobs if they did not comply. The court found sexual harassment even though the harassees were male.
Lagueux, J.
Employees allege that a series of several sexual incidents occurred on the Techni-Craft premises beginning the summer of 1988 and lasting until June or July of 1989. Defendants Smith and Marsella deny that most of it ever occurred, as does the Allison Reed Group. Smith, the general manager, was having a sexual liaison with his secretary, Marsella. Employee Showalter alleges that in the Spring of 1988, Smith began talking incessantly and obsessively about Marsella to Showalter. The talks were of a sexual nature and usually described to Showalter Smith’s sexual relationship with Marsella, including showing Showalter nude photos, pornographic drawings, and X-rated letters, all involving Marsella. By the end of the summer, Smith began telling Showalter that Marsella was interested in Showalter and prodding Showalter to join his sexual liaison with Marsella. Showalter declined on the ground that he was married, but Smith immediately told Showalter that he and Marsella were also married, but what their spouses didn’t know wouldn’t hurt them. Angrily, Smith told Showalter that Marsella controlled the hiring and firing decisions at Techni-Craft, and that if he valued his job he would follow Smith’s demands. Smith continued to press Showalter to engage in a ménage-à-trois, and reminded Showalter of Smith’s extensive connections in the jewelry business in Rhode Island, implying that Showalter would be shut out of the jewelry business if he did not comply with Smith’s request. Smith also told Showalter that he had to please Marsella in order for everything between Smith and Marsella “to be okay.” At one point, Smith also threatened Showalter with the loss of his medical benefits if he failed to participate in the sexual activity. Smith knew that this was especially important to Showalter because Showalter’s son had a heart defect and had undergone three open heart surgeries. Showalter first acceded to Smith’s demands in September 1988 when Smith orchestrated an after hours striptease performance by Marsella on company premises. Before the actual event Smith gave Showalter explicit instructions outlining the various sexual activity Smith expected Showalter to engage in with Marsella and him. This occurred at least twice and each time Showalter was unable to maintain an erection to do what was demanded of him, and was berated by Smith and Marsella. Showalter was also forced to observe and engage in other sexual activity at Techni-Craft from September 1988 to June 1989, including during work hours and after work hours. Smith tried to get Showalter to bring his wife into the activity in the Spring of 1989, but Showalter resisted. [Employee] Phetosomphone [FET-- o-SOM-fo-nee] was also forced by Smith to engage in sexual activity at Techni-Craft and observe it between Smith and Marsella. He feared he would lose his job if he did not accede. Here, Showalter and Phetosomphone were clearly the victims of both hostile environment sexual harassment and quid pro quo sexual harassment. For the quid pro quo sexual harassment, the employees were clearly required to trade the requested sexual activity for the privilege of keeping their jobs. The hostile environment sexual harassment occurred and drastically altered the conditions of plaintiffs’ employment and created a hostile and abusive work environment. The frequency and nature of the unwelcome sexual activity certainly was severe and pervasive. Sexual advances were made to plaintiffs for months and the harassment completely infected the work environment. JUDGMENT for PLAINTIFFS on this issue
Q1. What can an employer do to protect against liability for sexual harassment in situations such as this, where the person responsible for the workplace is the perpetrator?
Q2. This is a 1991 case. Do you think males who complain of sexual harassment are still less likely to be believed today? Explain. Do you think they are less likely to sue? Explain.
Q3. Should it make any difference that the request for sex with Showalter did not come directly from Marsella, the person who wanted to engage in the activity with him, but rather came from Smith? Explain.
Your answer must be typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format.