Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Wilson Metal Casket Co.

24 F.3d 836 (6th Cir. 1994)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D hired William Ellis on January 11, 1974, and Barbara Ellis on August 6, 1979. William and Barbara are married. D employed Dawn McMullan on April 20, 1987. While William was on temporary medical leave, D relocated Barbara's workstation to a building separate from the main plant. D repeatedly followed Barbara Ellis as she walked through the building and whenever she reached an isolated spot, he grabbed her, held her, kissed her, and fondled her, touching her breasts and buttocks. He also made sexual comments, requested she meet him after working hours and forced her to accompany him to isolated areas of the plant and to perform oral sex on him. When William returned to work, D moved Barbara's workstation back to the main plant and stopped demanding oral sex. The sexual harassment continued. William confronted D with allegations. D announced the incident at a meeting of his employees, including the Ellises. The Ellises denied any allegations of a sexual relationship. D fired the Ellises and gave them separation slips which stated they were terminated because of the telephone call and its effect upon Barbara. In 1987, McMullan worked for D for approximately three months. D fondled her breasts and buttocks, and sexually propositioned her. McMullan telephoned D and told him she was not coming to work that day because of his continued sexual advances. D told her she was terminated. William and Barbara Ellis filed separate charges with the EEOC alleging D discriminated against them and other female employees by either subjecting them to sexual harassment or retaliating against their protests of sexual harassment in violation of Title VII. After an investigation, EEOC believed Ps and also found at least two other female employees were forced to quit because of D's advances. Eventually, the court ruled against D and D appealed because the court imposed an overly broad injunction that was not narrowly tailored to the unlawful conduct.