For nearly two years the company Safelite has been fighting sexual harassment charges filed by the UNited States backed committee, the EEOC, or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Recently, Safelite, headquarters in Columbus, Ohio thought they had beaten the charges, but the EEOC has files a motion of opposition to the ruling.
The EEOC alleges that Safelite knowingly and without care is at fault for the sexual harassment and eventual retaliation of an employee who finally spoke out. The supervisors that once worked there during the instances in question have been let go, the EEOC and the judge has sided against them, but the EEOC still feels it is essential to pursue the case for the victim.
Gregory Byrd is the former supervisor in question, along with a named defendant, is glad the judge found against the EEOC. They are calling for the final end to the case, but it probably won't come anytime soon. At the moment, the presiding judge is blocking the case from going to court. But the EOCC is complaining that there is plenty of factual evidence that could allow a jury to see the case in the plaintiffs favor.
The victim is even considering letting the case go to the way-side. The EEOC is contending that the victim of the sexual harassment, Laraviere-Steele was fearful and emotionally distressed by rejecting the bosses sexual advances. Some of the other support coming to the EEOC is in the form of other employees claiming that Lavariere-Steele kept mentioning the problem.
She supposedly told many of her fellow employees that the supervisor was requesting sexual favors and that it even caused her to miss several days of work. She was eventually terminated from her job, which the EEOC is claiming was due to her not accepting the former supervisors sexual advances.
Safelite is being sued as a whole because the victim told her operations manager about the treatment. Her operations manager was named Tony Roach. She came forward with the allegations and informed him that she was close to resigning because of the uncalled for behavior. The day after she informed her OM, she called in sick due to a fear of attending work. The EEOC is demanding that the courts refuse to accept the motion that was filed for a summary judgement, which would kill the moment of the case.
The court hasn't put forth a final decision, but it is being hotly debated. The final outcome of this case will surely have repercussions for both parties. How long that outcome will take to come out is unknown, but it should be considered carefully. The decision could cost either side more than they bargained for.