Dunn v. State of Florida

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an employer may be held liable for harassment by a non-supervisory co-worker only if the employer knew or should have known of harassment and failed to take appropriate remedial action
• holding that an employer may be held liable for harassment by a non-supervisory co-worker only if the employer knew or should have known of harassment and failed to take appropriate remedial action
• explaining that courts have applied different standards depending on whether alleged harassment was committed by co-worker or supervisor
• noting that quid pro quo harassment constitutes an explicit alteration of the terms or conditions of employment, whereas a hostile working environment constitutes a constructive alteration of the term or conditions of employment
• finding employer’s response to co-worker harassment adequate, though it did not involve formal disciplinary action, because its “clear, prompt admonitions were appropriate, and at least for th[at] conduct, effective”
• finding the conduct of an investigation and admonishment of the accused to be “appropriate” and “effective” responses to allegations of sexual harassment, even though the defendant “took no formal disciplinary action”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).