Bill would change severe or pervasive' standard.

Byline: Kevin Featherly

The case is barely a blip on the continuum of Minnesota jurisprudence. But it was a monumental event in the life the young woman who told her story to members of the House Judiciary committee on Feb. 7. We're using only her first name.

In 2014, Ami was a server in a Golden Valley restaurant. Two of its frequent customers expressed a fondness for her and asked managers to make her their designated waitress. But their too-friendly conduct made her uncomfortable. One told Ami he had a crush on her and was undeterred when informed she had a boyfriend.

One night after work, Ami said, she walked to her car. The man who had professed his adoration was waiting outside. He suddenly raced his pickup towards her car and blocked it in, his headlights nearly blinding her. He quickly approached her with his truck door standing open.

"Two other servers sprinted from the other end of the parking lot and punched and yelled at the man to stop it," Ami told lawmakers. "All three of us thought I was about to be abducted."

After that, she asked managers not to assign her to the men's table anymore. They told her she had to keep serving them because they'd specifically requested her, she said.

Their attention grew even more intolerable. They would touch her, stroke her arms, try to steal unwanted hugseven after she told them to stop, Ami said. Sometimes she would hide in the kitchen, but couldn't stay there long. At times, a manager would even hover near the restaurant exit to make sure Ami told offered the men a friendly goodbye.

After the parking lot incident, she got an order for protection against the two men. But they were allowed to keep coming into the restaurant and she was required to keep serving them, Ami said. The whole episode went on for about a year.

In the end, she sued, charging workplace sexual harassment in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the federal Civil Rights Act. On Sept. 10, 2014, her case was sent to arbitration, where was it was heard by retired 1st Judicial District Court Judge Mary Pawlenty.

In June 2015, Pawlenty ruled against Ami. But she was not thrilled about it.

In her order, Pawlenty complained that she was precluded from relying on a lower judicial review standard than the "severe or pervasive" benchmark that has become the norm in sexual harassment cases.

"The case law makes it apparent that the facts in this case do not clear the hurdle," Pawlenty wrote. "Were this matter before a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT