The People v. Harvey Weinstein

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the loss of a full day of pay, seen in the context of long- term employment, is not an adverse action
• holding that employees were not supervisors despite managing the plaintiff’s work assignments, investigating complaints and disputes, and making recommendations concerning sanctions for rule violations
• holding that even the loss of a full day of pay, seen in the context of long-term employment, is not an adverse action
• holding that plaintiff’s complaint to management about one pornographic picture taped to her locker does not impute knowledge to employer of prevalent pornographic magazines and television used for viewing por- nography
• holding that being marked absent without pay did not cause plaintiff material harm
• noting that, for strict liability to apply, the plaintiff must show that the harasser “served specifically as her su‐ pervisor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).