United States Second Circuit

In an employee's claim that she was sexually harassed by her supervisor, the jury should have been allowed to consider as "tangible employment actions" 1) the requirement that she submit to sexual activity in order to keep her job, and (2) the withholding of her paychecks.

Appellate Information

• Argued 10/22/2001
• Decided 06/27/2002
• Published 06/27/2002

Judges

• FEINBERG, Circuit Judge., Before: FEINBERG, OAKES and F.I. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Second Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Peter G. Eikenberry, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant., (Marcia D. Greenberger; Judith Appelbaum; Washington, DC; Henry A. Petri, Jr.; Brian C. Miller; Howrey, Simon, Arnold & White; Houston, TX; for Amicus Curiae National Women's Law Center in support of Plaintiff-Appellant.)., (Hillary Richard; Laurie Edelstein; Brune & Richard LLP; New York, NY; for Amicus Curiae National Employment Lawyers Association/New York in support of Plaintiff-Appellant.).


• For Appellees:
  
• Steven E. Obus (Allen I. Fagin, on the brief), Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee., (Stephen A. Bokat; Robin S. Conrad; Joshua A. Ulman; National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc.; Washington, DC; Henry A. Rissetto; Jonathan C. Fritts; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; Washington, DC; Andrew J. Schaffran; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; New York, NY; for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States in support of Defendant-Appellee.).