A federal appeals court has reintroduced discrimination and retaliation claims filed by a former bank employee who claimed that the bank was negligent in dealing with a situation where a customer constantly persecuted and harassed her.
Jennifer Christian, an associate of Portland, Oregon-based Umpqua Bank, began being harassed by a bank customer in late 2013, following Thursday's decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco Jennifer Christian FKA Jennifer Havemen against Umpqua Bank.
The client's unwanted and unwelcome behavior included sending Christian love notes and flowers, asking staff at another branch how he could meet her, staring at her as she worked, and persecuting her at a charity event. [1
Ms. Christian resigned shortly thereafter and brought an action before the U.S. District Court in Portland, accusing him of harassment and retaliation under Section VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 and state law. The district court granted a summary judgment dismissing the case.
It was repealed by a unanimous panel of three judges, which announced two separate decisions in the case.
The district court isolated incorrectly harassing incidents that occurred in the Appeals Board said in February and September 2014.
“Christian understandably experienced the harassment not as isolated and sporadic events but rather as an escalating pattern of behavior that made her afraid in her own workplace. We can not say that a jury member would not think that the fear is reasonable or that the resulting environment is hostile, "the decision states.
The district court also erred in not considering cases where Christian did not have direct and personal interactions with the customer. for example, when he wrote a letter to her and called her his soulmate, sent flowers to her and saw her in the bank lobby, the verdict said.
The Appeals Panel said that incidents that do not include verbal communication, physical proximity or physical or sexual contact must also be considered. to the other branch to the badger Kristian's colleagues about how he could get a date with her.
A jury should decide whether the bank's documents were sufficient and "could find the bank's response unreasonable because it placed most of the burden on Christian herself," as when it suggested she should hide in the break when the customer entered the bank, of the decision.
"A jury could find the suggestion that a woman should be made hidden in her own workplace unreasonable, unpleasant and degrading," it said, reintroducing Christ's allegations of sex discrimination and taking back the case.
In a separate opinion, the panel also reintroduced her retaliation fee, her duties were not reduced when she was transferred, and also reiterated that claim.
Lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.