THE
INDIANA LAWYER
Indiana Trial
Reports
Type of Action:
Retaliation for man’s report of sexual harassment
Name of Case:
Stanback v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Type of Injuries:
Emotional distress.
Date of Trial:
April 30, 2001
Court/Case #:
U. S. District Court, Southern District Indiana, Case No. IP
99-0043-C-T/G.
Judge or Jury Trial:
Jury
Name of Judge:
John Daniel Tinder
Damages Awarded:
The jury awarded plaintiff $300,000 in compensatory damages and 2.5
million dollars in punitive damages. The parties entered into a
confidential settlement before judgment was entered.
Attorney for
Plaintiff:
Richard L. Darst, Attorney at Law, Indianapolis.
Attorneys for
Defendant:
Susan B. Tabler, Byron L. Myers & Tami A. Earnhart, Ice Miller,
Indianapolis.
Case Information:
Plaintiff
was not highly educated, but he was honest and hard working. He had
quit high school to mop floors and make beds at a railroad rest stop
where his mother worked as a cook. He was drafted into the Army and
served 18 months in Viet Nam, the last six months as an acting sergeant
in charge of a motor pool. He worked as a security guard for six years.
Later, he worked as a security guard for DaimlerChrysler for 24 years
with no disciplinary actions and excellent performance evaluations.
DaimlerChrysler told plaintiff that as a senior security guard he should
give guidance to newer guards, that DaimlerChrysler took sexual
harassment seriously, and that sexual harassment should be reported to
DaimlerChrysler. Witnesses testified that plaintiff worked by the book,
that he strictly reported rule violations which DaimlerChrysler told him
to report, and that he had an excellent reputation for truthfulness.
Several of
plaintiff’s witnesses testified that in November, 1997, while plaintiff
was manning the main gatehouse, two new female security guards talked in
front of other employees about the size of their breasts and the smaller
female asked another male if he didn’t think the big female had big
tits. That male said that the talk was too much for him and he left.
The big female had some top buttons on her shirt unbuttoned. She asked
if plaintiff wanted to see her tits, and plaintiff said no and button
up. Plaintiff reported the inappropriate conduct of the two female
employees to his supervisor and asked the supervisor to handle the
matter locally. DaimlerChrysler did not handle the matter locally, but
rather, sent the report to headquarters to be investigated as a
complaint of sexual harassment.
The defendant’s witnesses denied much of the information contained
above. The defendant agrees that the following facts were undisputed:
(1) the two female security guards talked in front of other employees
about the size of their breasts; (2) Plaintiff reported the two female
employees to his supervisor and asked the supervisor to handle the
matter locally; and (3) DaimlerChrysler did not handle the matter
locally but sent the report to headquarters to be investigated as a
complaint of sexual harassment pursuant to its general policies.
The language of the plaintiff’s report was as follows:
About two weeks ago
L., P. and myself was at Main Gate. I don’t know how it got started but
L. wanted to take her shirt off and show her tits. She said do you want
to see my tits and she unbutton one or two buttons on her shirt. I said
No leave your shirt on and button up. P. told her if she take her
brassiere off her tits would drop to her waistline. She still wanted to
disrobe at Main Gate. About that time cafeteria manager on days came in
and L. said to the manager He do not want to see my tits. The cafeteria
manager said Oh yes show the tits, laugh and walked out after she gave
me the keys. I refused to look at her tits. Since then she have taken
me to K. –H. and W. The word is I am talking to her in the wrong tone
of voice. I am not going to sugar coat my voice for her. You can check
with P. to verify this.
The report was not
submitted until two weeks after the alleged incident.
Headquarters
investigated the complaint and claimed that it took appropriate remedial
action against the female employees by counseling them that their talk
was inappropriate in the presence of other employees. However,
headquarters also instructed plaintiff’s supervisor to suspend plaintiff
for five days without pay for submitting a report containing false
statements. Before the headquarters office told the supervisor to
discipline plaintiff, no one including plaintiff’s supervisor,
plaintiff’s chain of command, or the defendant’s investigator had
recommended that plaintiff be disciplined. Several female witnesses
testified and DaimlerChrysler argued to the jury that the word tits is a
man’s word, not a woman’s word. Several witnesses testified that the
women used the word tits and more vulgar words.
The big female
testified that she did not offer to show her breasts, but the other
female admitted that the big female stuck out her chest and said that
she was not afraid to show anyone. The big female testified that she
always had her shirt buttoned to the top button on all occasions, but
several witnesses including the supervisor of plaintiff and of the big
female testified that she did not have her top two or three buttons
buttoned on other occasions. The big female testified in sweat pants
and a T shirt which stated “I
©
Me” across the front. Her appearance corroborated the testimony of the
other witnesses that she was not professional.
DaimlerChrysler’s
investigator from headquarters submitted an affidavit that a policy on
sexual harassment was “distributed to all employees and is posted at
every facility,” and that a true and accurate copy of the sexual
harassment policy was attached in two pages. The testimony showed that
the investigator did not know what was distributed to all employees, and
only a one-page summary of the two-page policy had been posted.
Other security
guards told DaimlerChrysler that the females had used such language on
other occasions, but DaimlerChrysler did not give importance to their
statements because their statements were not about the same incident.
Then DaimlerChrysler claimed that the one incident was not sexual
harassment because it was an isolated incident.
Plaintiff argued
that DaimlerChrysler had a policy which allowed it to discipline
employees who complain about discrimination. Plaintiff took early
retirement at age 57 the next time that it was offered by
DaimlerChrysler. He desired to continue working as a security guard for
other employers, but he testified that no security company would hire
him with a record of having made a false complaint of sexual
harassment. In requesting punitive damages, Plaintiff argued that the
Defendant disciplined an employee for a complaint which had been found
to require remedial action against the other employees, disregarded the
excellent 24-year performance of plaintiff, disregarded plaintiff’s
excellent reputation for truthfulness, disregarded the complaints of the
other security guards, presented witnesses who lied, falsely stated that
plaintiff made a false complaint of sexual harassment, and maintained a
policy allowing the employer to discipline employees who complain about
discrimination.
Name and Telephone
Number of Person Authenticating This Report:
Richard L. Darst; 317-573-8888.
I certify that I have
sent a copy of this report to the opposing party through its attorneys.
_________________________________
Richard L. Darst
Top
