Howard University v. Best

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff \made out a prima facie case of intentional infliction of emotional distress ... [by] demonstrat[ing] repeated 'sexual harassment' by ... her supervisor\
• holding that the plaintiff “made out a prima facie case of intentional infliction of emotional distress insofar as she demonstrated repeated ‘sexual harassment’ by the man who was her supervisor,” particularly in light of the public policy animating the DCHRA
• stating that “employer-employee conflicts do not, as a matter of law, rise to the level of outrageous conduct”
• stating that “where a male supervisor makes sexual overtures to a female worker, it is clear that the harassment is based on a prohibited criterion”
• “Recognizing that women suffer sexual harassment in the workplace, based on outmoded sexual sterotypes (sic
• noting that “many of the incidents of alleged sexual harassment occurred during ... professional meetings attended by [the perpetrator and the victim] in their professional capacities”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).