Second Circuit Approves Post-Judgment Injunction Due To Unique Facts Of Sexual Harassment

EEOC v. KarenKim, Inc., No. 11-3309-cv (2d Cir. Oct. 19, 2012): The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit on behalf of female employees who worked at the defendant’s Oswego, New York grocery store. During a two-week jury trial, numerous employees testified that the store’s manager routinely verbally and physically sexually harassed teenage female employees with graphic comments, innuendo, and inappropriate touching. The employees testified that they complained to the store’s owner, who had a romantic relationship with the manager, but the owner did not believe them. On one occasion, the manager pled guilty to second-degree criminal harassment. Based upon this evidence, the jury returned a verdict for the EEOC and the claimants, finding that the defendant was liable for maintaining a “sexually hostile work environment” with “malice or reckless indifference” to the rights of young female employees. The jury’s award included punitive damages of $1,250,000. Following the verdict, the district court rejected the EEOC’s request for injunctive relief. On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the district court abused its discretion because it denied injunctive relief directed at ensuring that the manager would no longer be in a position to sexually harass employees. Although in an ordinary case, terminating a lone sexual harasser may be sufficient to eliminate the “cognizable danger” that a defendant-employer will engage in recurrent violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the court concluded that “this is not an ordinary case.” The court therefore remanded the decision for reconsideration and suggested that an appropriate injunction would prohibit the defendant from employing the manager in the future and prohibit him from entering its premises. This unusual case emphasizes that failing to take adequate steps to investigate and correct sexual harassment may subject the employer to injunctions that include continued outside monitoring and oversight.

Note: This article was published in the December 2012 issue of the New York eAuthority.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.