Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Erickson (P) claims he was the victim of sexual discrimination in that his employer, Marsh (D) discharged him because of a romantic consensual relationship between his supervisor and a female employee. In May 1982, the company transferred P to the Commercial Accounts Department as an account executive. P asserts that this transfer was a promotion because an account executive enjoys a higher job category than account representative. D testified that P had been unilaterally transferred from the largest and most prestigious department to a smaller and less prestigious department, at the same salary, because he had failed to grasp certain technical aspects of his job. D met with P to discuss sexual harassment allegations made against him. P eventually contested the accusations. On May 2, 1983, D prepared a formal appraisal of P as 'acceptable' and 'inadequate.' P claimed the alleged deficiencies contained within the report were never brought to P's attention since the inception of my employment D. Nowhere within the report is there any mention, nor is it implied, that P had been previously advised of said alleged deficiencies. D then terminated P. P sought employment with other insurance-brokerage firms. In response to reference requests from D, D wrote: John left our operation because his level of expertise and areas of interest in insurance did not match the depth required for the proper service of [M & M] clients. John does possess a general knowledge of commercial insurance and is well known among the insurance markets. If these are qualities you are seeking for your Account Executive position, we would recommend John Erickson to you. P sued D for sexual harassment in that he was wrongfully accused of sexual harassment so that a superior, could promote a woman, whom the superior had been romantically involved. P also charged that D's responses to his prospective employers had been libelous. A jury found D liable of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, wrongful termination based on sex discrimination in violation of LAD, and libel. A jury awarded P $250,000 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court and entered judgment in favor of D on all claims. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co