The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the employer's motion for summary judgment in this sexual harassment case because the plaintiff "unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive and corrective opportunities provided by AGCO or to otherwise avoid harm." Applying the criteria set forth by the Supreme Court in Farragher for assessing supervisory liability in hostile work environment cases, the Court found that AGCO had a formal policy set forth in its handbook defining sexual harassment and outlining a specific complaint procedure. Further, AGCO terminated one supervisor and severely disciplined two others. AGCO also notified plaintiff, who had been placed on paid administrative leave at her own request, that it had taken significant action and would hold her position for her. Plaintiff never responded. Accordingly, the Court held that AGCO had met its burden of proving the affirmative defense outlined in Farragher.
Employer Following Complaint Procedure in Handbook Sets Forth Affirmative Defense to Sexual Harassment Claim
This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers | Last reviewed March 26, 2008
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw’s team of legal writers and attorneys and in accordance with our editorial standards.
The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area.
Montero v. AGCO Corp. No. Civ. S-96-1920 FCD DAD, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13956 (E.D.Ca., August 14, 1998).
Was this helpful?