A federal district court in Tennessee has denied an employer's motion for summary judgment in a sexual harassment case because there was insufficient evidence that the employer had an effective policy to prevent or correct any harassing behavior. The employer's attempt to invoke the Faragher/Ellerth defense failed because there was "no evidence in this record that plaintiff Bishop, defendant Butler, or any other Woodbury employee received any training regarding the company's anti-harassment policy." There was a policy in place, but the lack of training made it insufficient for purposes of summary judgement. Employers must establish the effectiveness of the policy because that is an element of the affirmative defense. This case sends a clear signal that employee and supervisory training may well be essential to the defense.

A jury has awarded $451,000 in damages against Boh Brothers for male on male sexual harassment. This case was litigated on behalf of plaintiff by the EEOC. Previous post here.

A New Jersey appellate court has found the State's Law Against Discrimination applies to a claim by one business that another ceased doing business with it because its female owner refused the sexual advances of a branch manager of the second business. Sexual harassment claims are normally brought under the employment laws, but New Jersey's LAD is broader. The LAD prohibits a gender based refusal to do business with another. The appellate court had little difficulty determining that quid pro quo harassment was based upon gender here. It remains an open questions as to whether the LAD covers a hostile environment created by one business affecting another.