Discrimination and employment law is undergoing constant change. The cases heard before the Supreme Court each year increase as well as set the precedent for further similar cases. The wide variety of the ever changing world of employment law is what drew Attorney Tayeb Hyderally to pursue the area of law. Mr. Hyderally is an expert on employment law on the national and local levels. He has many years of successful litigation in employment law in the New Jersey area. There are many cases such as Ellerth v Burlington Industries which define liability in sexual harassment cases. Such cases help to define laws and provide clarity.
Ellerth v Burlington Industries
Kimberly Ellerth was employed by Burlington from March 1993 to May of 1994. Her immediate supervisor, Theodore Slowik subjected her to harassing comments, acts and also issued threats of retaliation if she did not submit. He suggested that he could make her life at work miserable or pleasurable based on her ability to gratify him. He made other solicitations to which she would not submit.
Mr. Slowik repeatedly made remarks concerning women’s bodies, including Ms. Ellerth’s. He subjected her to unsolicited bodily contact and many offensive jokes. Before he refused to authorize a special project for a customer of Ms. Ellerth he asked, “Are you wearing shorter skirts yet Kim, because it would make your job a whole heck of a lot easier?” She resigned shortly after this incident. She also reported the incidents to Slowik’s supervisors informing them that she had resigned because of his harassment. She did not report it while she was still employed because she feared retaliation.
When Ms. Ellerth filed the Title VII action in the District Court, they made a judgment for Burlington stating that they were not liable for sexual harassment. However, upon appeal, the US Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the District Court. They found Burlington liable for the sexual harassment under Title VII.