In Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1981), this reasoning was applied to sex-based harassment in a case where the plaintiff alleged that because she spurned a supervisor’s sexual advances, her career progress was slowed. The court held sexual harassment to be an unlawful discriminatory practice:
Sexual harassment which injects the most demeaning stereotypes into the general work environment and which always represents an intentional assault on an individual’s innermost privacy.
In ruling for the first time that sexual harassment violates the City HRL, the state Supreme Court in Rudow v. New York City Commission on Human Rights[FOOTNOTE 4] turned to Bundy to conclude:
While many victims of sexual harassment may be able to demonstrate tangible job-related losses, such as termination, loss of promotion or involuntary transfer, many others will suffer from less obvious but equally devastating effects such as inability to perform a job, loss of self-confidence, powerlessness, fear, anger, nervousness, decreased job satisfaction, and physical symptoms like headaches, nausea and weight change….This could not have been the intention of the City Council when it enacted section B1-7.0 of the Administrative Code.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
