How Can Systemic Workplace Gaps Lead to Sexual Harassment?

What were the specific allegations of sexual harassment and assault in this case?

A. The lawsuit involved Makita Bryant, a security guard who alleged that her supervisor, the Vice President of Operations, subjected her to a severe, hostile work environment. This included inappropriate sexual comments and unwanted invitations to hotels. The conduct reached a critical point when the supervisor allegedly pinned Bryant against a wall and exposed himself. Bryant recorded the encounter and reported the assault to the company’s owner, but the firm failed to take corrective action against the supervisor.

How did the company’s handling of evidence contribute to the large verdict?

A. A key factor in the $5.5 million award was the company’s “inhumane” handling of evidence. Bryant had provided the company with her recording device, which contained the only copy of a deceased loved one’s voice. The company refused to return the device, effectively holding her family memories hostage. Additionally, the court issued a “spoliation of evidence” instruction because the company failed to preserve text messages between executives, leading the jury to assume that the missing communications were unfavorable to the defense.

What form of retaliation did the jury find the company liable for?

A. The jury determined that C&M Defense Group engaged in retaliatory discharge. After Bryant reported the sexual assault, the company did not terminate the harasser; instead, they reassigned Bryant to a different job site and reduced her working hours to zero. The EEOC found reasonable cause that this “administrative squeeze” was a direct retaliation for her protected activity of reporting sexual harassment and assault.