Belinda Hulsey v. Pride Restaurants

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that courts sometimes use “the word ‘claim’” as “potentially confusing” shorthand for “theories of liability”
• explaining that genuine issue of fact remained as to whether conduct was severe or pervasive when male supervisor made at least eighteen sexual advances during an approximate two-week span, repeatedly attempted to touch plaintiff’s breasts and to place his hands down her pants
• listing elements for a sex discrimination claim under a “hostile work environment” theory
• analyzing the frequency, severity, and nature of the alleged sexual harassment only when assessing the plaintiff's claim under a hostile work environment theory, but not when assessing her claim under a tangible employment action theory
• reversing district court's grant of summary judgment and remanding for a trial on plaintiff's theory that employer is vicariously liable to her for a Title VII violation she suffered because her supervisor “fired her for refusing to give in to his sexual advances.”
• “[Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs] if the employee’s refusal to submit to a supervisor’s sexual demands results in a tangible employment action.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).