Previous Post

The law is becoming clearer on what exactly constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace. Legal experts such as Ty Hyderally have been successfully litigating cases which set new precedents in the legal world. This class action suit which was filed against the Mitsubishi Corporation is an example of successful litigation. This is a case wherein sexual harassment in the workplace got totally out of hand and became a sexually hostile environment.

A class action law suit was filed against Mitsubishi Motors Corp by the United States Equal Employment Opportunities Commission on April 9, 1996. The suit contained over 300 claims by women who worked at the Normal, Illinois Mitsubishi plant. Their claims were that they had been subjected to repeated sexual harassment in the workplace which began as early as 1988.  The EEOC alleged that managers had been involved in passing around pornographic photographs of male workers displaying sexual acts, male workers who had exposed themselves, obscene graffiti and assaults (both physical and verbal) against women who worked at the plant. The second part of the class action suit stated that the management and Employee Relations Department failed to respond adequately. Many times there was no response at all to the complaints filed by women who had filed regarding the harassment. EEOC pursued the case to stop the harassment and also to obtain some compensation for the women who had been harassed.

Mitsubishi tried to argue that there were time constraints on some of the older cases and therefore they were not eligible to be included in the class action law suit. However, the court rejected the argument stating that there is not a statute of limitations and that EEOC did not unduly delay their actions.

On June 10, 1998, the EEOC and Mitsubishi reached a settlement. Mitsubishi agreed to pay $34 million in compensation to the workers who had been affected. The company also agreed that they would revamp their sexual harassment policies and adapt a “zero tolerance” policy toward sexual harassment. This meant that they would revise the company’s existent policies and commit to setting up a proper complaint procedure as well as sexual harassment training for its employees. Mitsubishi would also be under review by an independent panel which would monitor the progress at the Normal, Illinois plant. Mitsubishi did become vigilant in their stand against sexual harassment in the workplace and hired Lynn Martin, former Secretary of Labor to help overhaul the system. They now boast a zero tolerance policy.

Sexual harassment is unfortunately part of the day to day life of many workers around the country and makes going to work difficult for many, fortunately there are employment law attorneys such as Tayeb Hyderally who are there to fight vigorously for the rights of all employees.

Employment Law Cases – Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services

The topic of employment law has been battled in the  courtroom for years and will most likely continue for years to come. Ty Hyderally has been listed among the Top Ten Employment Litigators in Northern New Jersey. Cases such as Oncale v Sundowner help to set the precedent for our employment laws today.

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services was a case for sexual discrimination in which the Supreme Court held that workplace discrimination as applied to harassment in the workplace pertains to instances between members of the same sex. The case was filed by a male who worked on an oil rig. His claim was that he was repeatedly exposed to sexual harassment from other male coworkers, with the full knowledge and agreement of his employer.

Joseph Oncale worked with an eight man crew on an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico.  Oncale was repeatedly forced to sex related and humiliating actions by his coworkers while the rest of the crew was present. His complaints to personnel who were supervising resulted in no remedial actions. He was rather labeled as “homosexual” and made fun of further. Eventually, Oncale quit and requested that his pink slip reflect that his voluntary termination was due to sexual harassment as well as verbal abuse.

His original complaint filed against Sundowner Offshore Services stated that he was discriminated against because of his gender. The district court following previous precedents granted the judgment to the defendant stating that because Mr. Oncale was male, he had no case of action under Title VII that protected him from harassment from other male workers. When Oncale appealed the case the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit also supported this decision. However, the Supreme Court did not agree and reversed the decision.

The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision in Oncale’s favor and set a new precedent for future cases dealing with same sex discrimination. The Court’s decision in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services is pertinent to cases which deal with same-sex harassment and other actions of sexual harassment that do not deal with any kind of motivation for “sexual desire.” The Court’s conclusion was that any type of discriminations based on sex can be actionable if it puts the victim in a position of objective disadvantage in the workplace. This is true without regard to the gender of the victim or the harasser. Because this case set the precedent for same sex harassment, it has been acclaimed as a landmark case concerning “gay rights” cases.