Huston v. Procter & Gamble Paper Products Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that \an employee's knowledge of allegations of coworker sexual harassment may typically be imputed to the employer in two circumstances[.]\
• holding that an adequate response to complaint to prevent further harassment supports summary judg- ment for the employer
• holding that employees were not management-level because they did not have the authority to hire, discipline, and discharge and they generally performed the same functions as the employees they oversaw
• recognizing a hostile work environment existed where there was evidence of four indecent exposures and pornography viewed by male coworkers
• explaining that where the harassing employee is the victim’s co-worker, rather than a supervisor, the employer is liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions
• finding that an employer knew or should have known about workplace harassment if “management-level employees had actual or constructive knowledge about the existence of a sexually hostile environment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).