Annoying Behavior Not Sexual Harassment

Liability associated with adverse employment situations has driven the development of a whole new insurance segment, Employment Practices Liability (EPL) insurance (which, of course, all organizations should purchase).  EPL insurance provides coverage for employment related claims arising from wrongful termination, sexual harassment and discrimination.  While courts have typically expanded organizations’ liability arising from of employment related claims, a recent case goes in the opposite direction.

In this case, the court found that simply annoying behavior was not sexual harassment, and the employer was not liable for the activity.  The case, Godfrey v. Princeton Theological Seminary (see here), involved two women enrolled at the Princeton Theological Seminary who claimed that they were harassed by an elderly tenant of the Seminary housing.  As noted in a summary by the Thomas Paschos & Associates (see here or here):

plaintiff's subjective responses to the allegedly harassing conduct do not control, or otherwise affect, the determination of whether the conduct is severe or pervasive.

The court noted (see here):

Whether we view the encounters that Godfrey and Kile had with Miller individually, or cumulatively, we arrive at the same conclusion. Although socially inapt and, no doubt, annoying, Miller’s conduct did not approach sexual harassment. Persons who are socially tone deaf are not, by that characteristic, necessarily the equivalent of sexual harassers. It is important in that regard that neither of these women used her own authority to tell Miller to “go away.” They cannot rely on the prospect of a money damages award from the Seminary to replace their own obligation to simply tell Miller that they had no interest in him romantically or even as a casual acquaintance.

Brought to you by MercatorPro.