Sexual Harassment Claim Thrown Out

June 19, 2002 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A former employee of a suburban Philadelphia company who received a fake note about erectile dysfunction may have been abused by coworkers, but the maltreatment wasn't bad enough for a sexual harassment lawsuit, a federal judge ruled.

According to a Legal Intelligencer report, sexually explicit materials given to plaintiff Thomas Keown by co-workers, were not enough to make out a hostile work environment claim because they “did not place Mr Keown into a sexually threatening or humiliating position,” US District Judge Berle Schiller wrote.

Keown’s lawyer, Harold Goodman, argued that a pamphlet and Post-It note about erectile dysfunction were particularly offensive to Keown because he had a penile implant.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

Schiller disagreed, saying, “There is no reason it should have interfered with his work performance or had a significant impact on his psychological well-being.”

Schiller also found that the pamphlets “were sent too infrequently – eight or nine pamphlets over a four-month period – to constitute harassment.”

At the same time, Schiller, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ruled that the 50-something Keown could move forward with claims he was discriminated against because of his age, as well as charges that he was fired after complaining about the co-worker abuse.

Background

According to court papers, Keown worked in the Norristown, Pennsylvania office of Richfood Holdings, where he was in charge of transportation and oversaw management information systems.

Beginning in October 1998, Keown said he found pamphlets containing sexual content in his work mailbox. One pamphlet was titled “Testosterone Levels: the Key to Great Sex for Men Over Fifty,” and discussed the possible benefits of the hormone androstenedione for sexual potency.

Keown said he confronted Penny Mitchell, Richfood’s accounting vice president, who admitted sending the pamphlet.

Mitchell allegedly told Keown: “You’re an older man. You’ve got gray hair. I thought they would be of interest to you.”

Between October 1998 and January 1999, Keown claimed he received up to 10 more sexually suggestive pamphlets.

All of the pamphlets were small booklets of about eight to 10 pages, he said, and some were more sexually explicit than others.

Age Discrimination

But the harassment was also age-based, Keown claimed, citing a December 1998 telephone conversation in which his direct supervisor, Charlotte Edwards, remarked: “Tom Keown, you’re getting senile on me” and slammed down the telephone.

In the final alleged incident of sexual harassment, Keown claimed he received a pamphlet that discussed erectile dysfunction in older men. Attached to the cover of the pamphlet was a Post-It note signed in the name of Keown’s wife.

Mitchell has admitted sending both the pamphlet and the note.

Meeting

Keown claimed he was called to a meeting with the company’s chief operating officer and the head of human resources, that he believed was to discuss his complaints against Mitchell.

Instead, Keown claimed that his complaint was only touched on at the meeting, and he was denounced for his use of profanity at work and his performance and work ethics were criticized, despite consistently received high performance reviews and pay increases.

Keown also claims his boss recommended that he resign and that he did so several weeks later.

The case is Keown v. Richfood Holdings.

SURVEY SAYS: Changing Sides

May 31, 2001 - In the wake of Senator Jeffords' decision yesterday we asked if you thought that YOUR senator should have the right to change political affiliations in accordance with his/her conscience, or should those decisions wait for an election?

The response was enthusiastic in volume and tone, but a strong 76% said that if an elected official wanted to change his/her “stripes,” they should do it as part of an election. “False advertising” was an oft-used phrase of these respondents, as was “of the people, by the people” and “bait and switch.” Many noted that, since the choice of party affiliation had no impact on the exercise of their vote, conscience shouldn’t be negatively influenced. Others cited the fact that that same conscience would surely lead the party changer to return election funds from the party departed.

On the other hand, the remaining 24% were just as committed to the notion of electing a person, not a party –and supportive of the need to preserve the same freedom of “association” that we all enjoy, irrespective of the artificial environment created by the current “balance”, or lack thereof.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

Verbatims from the readership:

“All elected officials should remain in their affiliated party until they are running for re-election, at which time they should be free to choose. After all, considerable sums are donated to have people elected that are raised and distributed by the political parties, and changing one’s party in mid term is akin to stealing. ( I am a Vermonter and I am not happy.)”

“If the candidate chosen by the people feels the need to belong to a party in the first place, and (s)he chooses to change party affiliation later, I have no qualms about that. The job results are important. Party affiliation is not.”

“I think my Senator should have the ability to change his or her political affiliations – once they have paid back all of the money that was contributed to their last election campaign, since their conscience should also prevent them from taking political contributions from the supporters of the party they have just abandoned.”

“Our representatives are citizens too, with the right to change party affiliations at any time. I support the decision made by Jeffords.”

“I would hope that a Senator’s conscience would point out that they told the voters they were of a certain party when they asked for their vote, and that their conscience would tell them that they should resign and run again in their new party if their conscience told them they had to switch parties.”

“Ideally, political parties should not come into play when identifying people to lead our nation. It may be that as people we need labels in order to identify someone as opposed to making the true determination as to how well suited they are to lead and do what is right for the country as opposed to what is right for an ideology.”

“This is another reminder that we have a great system. It works.”

“If more politicians voted their conscience we’d all be better off. There’s nothing magic about a party name.”

“I vote for a person in a general election and therefore wouldn’t mind if the elected official changes party affiliation while retaining the same political and moral views as he/she did entering office.”

And finally, our “favorite”: “I wish both my senators would change their party, since I didn’t vote for either one of them!”

Thanks to everyone who participated in our survey!

«