The EEOC claims that these incidents occurred under managerial supervision, yet Sis-Bro failed to address the harassment. This persistent misconduct led the employee to quit in October 2021.
Sis-Bro’s Arguments Challenged
Sis-Bro argued that the EEOC’s case is invalid because much of the alleged misconduct occurred before the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which extended Title VII protections to include gender identity and sexual orientation. However, the EEOC stated that courts, including the Seventh Circuit, have applied Bostock retroactively.
The EEOC also rebutted Sis-Bro’s assertion that the complaint lacked sufficient facts to survive a dismissal motion. It detailed the misconduct’s timing, the harassers, and specific harassment incidents. The EEOC emphasized that the harassment was subjectively offensive and intolerable, forcing the employee to resign.
“Sis-Bro’s arguments that EEOC failed to plead responses to various elements of the prima facie case, including subjective offense in the context of severe or pervasive harassment, or that the charging party quit in the context of constructive discharge, do not justify dismissal,” the EEOC said. “EEOC described the conduct with sufficient detail to put Sis-Bro on notice of the claims and to plausibly give rise to a claim for relief.”
EEOC Trans Worker’s Harassment : Legal Representation
A representative of Sis-Bro did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. The EEOC declined to comment.
