What is the difference between a single incident of sexual harassment at work?
The following excerpt is from Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000):
4. A case involving a single incident of sexual harassment is obviously distinct from one involving a series of incidents, which the employer knows about and does nothing to correct. In such circumstances, the nonaction by the employer can fairly be characterized as acquiescence, i.e., having changed the terms and conditions of employment to include putting up with harassment from other employees. See, e.g., Hostetler v. Quality Dining, Inc. , 218 F.3d 798, 802-05 (7th Cir. 2000).
4. A case involving a single incident of sexual harassment is obviously distinct from one involving a series of incidents, which the employer knows about and does nothing to correct. In such circumstances, the nonaction by the employer can fairly be characterized as acquiescence, i.e., having changed the terms and conditions of employment to include putting up with harassment from other employees. See, e.g., Hostetler v. Quality Dining, Inc. , 218 F.3d 798, 802-05 (7th Cir. 2000).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
