THE INDIANA LAWYER
KNOX CASE
Type of Action:
Employment / Sexual Harassment and Retaliation
Name of Case:
Kristi Blackburn Knox v. State of Indiana.
Type of Injuries:
Emotional Distress.
Date of Last Judgment for Fees:
May 29, 1997.
Court/Case #:
U. S. District Court, S. D. Ind.; Case No. IP
93-900-C, affirmed 93 F.3d 1327 (7th Cir. 1996).
Judge or Jury Trial:
Jury.
Name of Judge:
Chief Magistrate Judge John Paul Godich.
Damages Awarded:
$40,000 compensatory damages plus attorney
fees and costs of $77,629.06. After the jury verdict, the judge awarded injunctive relief,
ordering the defendant to distribute and post a notice that it is unlawful to retaliate
for complaints of discrimination.
Settlement Amount:
Payment of the judgment with interest,
injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs. Before trial, plaintiff had demanded $10,000
with injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs. Defendant had offered zero.
Attorney for Plaintiff:
Richard L. Darst, Indianapolis.
Attorney for Defendant:
Available upon request.
Insurance Carrier:
None.
Case Information:
The Lead Captain at the Indiana Correctional Industrial
Complex requested sex from the subordinate female correctional officer. Requests for sex
were made in person and by the State of Indiana e-mail. Plaintiff complained about the
sexual harassment, and the defendant suspended and demoted the Lead Captain.
The defendant did not advise the Lead Captain against
retaliating against plaintiff. Friends of the Lead Captain stated that plaintiff was a
"fucking bitch," that they would make plaintiff's life "hell," and
that they were going to "get her." Plaintiff complained about the retaliation,
but the employer did not investigate at that time. The employer told the plaintiff to
investigate who was involved. Plaintiff investigated the names of witnesses and gave them
to the employer.
The employer's investigator recommended disciplinary action against
one of the employees who was retaliating, but the superintendent only issued a counseling,
not a discipline. The plaintiff requested the superintendent to speak at roll call against
retaliation, but the superintendent declined to do so. The evidence showed that employees
were not aware of any policy of the employer against retaliation. The jury found the
defendant not liable for the sexual harassment, but liable for the retaliation.
Top
