THE INDIANA LAWYER
ESSIG CASE
Type of Action:
Employment / Sexual Harassment
Name of Case:
Cynthia L. Essig v. John Dalton, Secretary of the Navy.
Type of Injuries:
Lost overtime, sick leave, job position, and seniority, all
before the 1991 Civil Rights Act.
Date of Judgment:
December 27, 1995; defendant appealed and dismissed
appeal; satisfaction of judgment June 26, 1997.
Court/Case #:
U. S. District Court, S. D. Ind.; Case No. IP
92-0863-C-H/G.
Judge or Jury Trial:
Judge.
Name of Judge:
Honorable David F. Hamilton.
Damages Awarded:
$15,771 for lost wages, $2,000 for counseling,
injunctive relief of restoration of seniority, and attorney fees and costs of $125,921.11.
Settlement Amount:
Attorney for Plaintiff:
Richard L. Darst, Indianapolis.
Attorney for Defendant:
Available upon request.
Insurance Carrier:
None.
Case Information:
A male co-worker repeatedly requested sex from the
female plaintiff, and after she refused to give him sex, the harasser refused to help
plaintiff with lifting which required two persons. The harasser also sat in his car
outside plaintiff's apartment.
Plaintiff reported the sexual harassment to the employer, and the
employer told her it could not do anything about actions which were not on plant property.
The plaintiff attempted to file an EEO complaint, but because the employer's EEO process
was so slow nation-wide, the employer diverted plaintiff's complaint to a management
inquiry panel. The first management inquiry panel investigated whether management was
liable, instead of investigating whether there was sexual harassment. The employer did not
follow the regulations for investigating EEO complaints. A second management inquiry panel
found no physical harassment, but found that the harasser said things that were definitely
inappropriate.
The harasser retaliated by claiming that the plaintiff made racial
remarks to him, which allegations were false. The harasser also retaliated by claiming
that the plaintiff showed him pictures of her breasts, which was false. The court found
that the harasser's allegations were invented as part of a defense to the sexual
harassment charge.
The employer refused to accept EEO complaints unless they were
type-written. When plaintiff was finally allowed by the employer to file a type-written
formal EEO complaint, management stopped its investigation of the sexual harassment. The
employer gave plaintiff a settlement agreement of the EEO complaint, promising to take
appropriate action, but the employer took no action. The district court voided the
settlement agreement for lack of consideration.
The employer permanently transferred the victim to a less attractive
job, did not permanently transfer the harasser, did not conduct a complete investigation,
and did not discipline the harasser. The court held that penalizing the victim is not an
appropriate response to a claim of sexual harassment. The case is an example of the
complicated proceedings which federal employees are required to endure.
Top
