On Tuesday, a federal appeal court ruled that a previous OSHA employee who filed more than 60 US equality commission complaints in five years cannot sue the Ministry of Labor for retaliation and for allegedly creating a hostile work environment after her complaint.  Chrysoula Komis is a former US Occupational Safety and Health Inspector, who in her EEOC complaint claimed she was denied the ability to work from home, had moved to work, relocated, and not promoted by other allegations under documents of Chrysoula Komis Against Secretary at the United States Departmental Department filed in 3rd United States Circuit Court of Appeal in Philadelphia.
The documents chronicle a series of disciplinary actions against Mrs Komis, which included "Written reprimand, revocation, refusal of access to education opportunities and removal from a particular mission" as the Court of Appeal observed that "appears to be discrete staffing measures that change the terms of her employment . "
In August 2008, OSHA Ms Komis completed his employment. When she left her post in September 2008, she filed the last of her EEOC complaints, which claimed "constructive discharge". A month later, she filed a lawsuit against the work department according to documents.
A trial court was then granted judgment "as a matter of law" for the department of a claim for retaliation, appealed a judgment of Ms. Komis not. The accusing hostile work environment application preceded a jury, which also returned a verdict in favor of the work department. Ms. Komis appealed the verdict, challenged the jury's instructions and argued that "the court made too much damage that she had to prove at the jury's task of a hostile work environment," documents said.
By confirming the court's decision, a three-judge panel with federal appeal court on Tuesday ruled the jury instructions were "harmless" in the verdict which cast Mr Komi's hostile work environment demands, including those that stated she was not promoted and chaired,
The ruling explained the justifications, according to the government's testimony: "(1
The ruling also explained that nothing else O SHA workers at that time had to work from home and the alleged events of a hostile work environment occurred without the supervisor's knowledge of her EEO complaints.
The employment and law firm for both the plaintiff and the defendant could not be reached immediately for comment.