Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Sex Harassment Case Nets EEOC $5.4 Million Dollar Settlement
Eight registered nurses who underwent pre-employment medical examinations were instead sexually harassed, according to a proposed Consent Decree submitted to Judge Leonard Sand by the EEOC and Lutheran Medical Center. Under the terms of the proposed settlement reached by the parties, the medical center has agreed to pay $5.425 million dollars to compensate the nurses and other female nurses similarly harassed. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lutheran Medical Center, 01 CV 5494 (E.D.N.Y.) (Raggi, D. J.).
Conrado Ponio, MD, was the medical center's physician who performed medical examinations for newly hired registered nurses and those returning from leave for the period of 1996 to 2000. The EEOC alleged in its complaint that Ponio had the authority to clear employees for employment. The agency further alleged that Ponio sexually harassed the eight nurses, as well as others, in the context of this medical exam, and threatened the nurses that if they did not acquiesce to his unwelcome sexual conduct, their employment would be delayed or denied. The EEOC contended that during the period from November 1999 to January 2000, Ponio required these nurses to submit to breast and vaginal exams that included his touching and probing their genitals without wearing latex gloves. Ponio allegedly also required the nurses to respond to irrelevant sexual and personal questions such as their use of contraception and their dating status.
The complaint alleged that a female employee complained about Ponio's sexual harassment in July 1999, but that the medical center took no preventive measures to safeguard against further harassment by the doctor. In particular, the agency claims that the hospital failed to investigate the complaint to determine whether other female employees were similarly harassed, or in any other way limit Ponio's unfettered ability to abuse his authority.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.