Judge rules against county in sexual harassment suit

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30669
• Published date: 01 October 2019
• Date: 01 October 2019

OCTOBER 2019 NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR

11

© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company • All rights reserved

DOI: 10.1002/nba

plaintiff’s work computer, an IT employee used her

Dropbox username and password to access her pri-

vate Dropbox account. He then allegedly obtained

some unspecied “personal photographs” and gave

them to another Cleareld employee.

Those “personal photographs” were eventually

forwarded around the ofce.

In August 2017, a manager accused the plaintiff

of storing “inappropriate pictures” on her work

computer and emailed a termination agreement for

her to sign. The manager said that if she voluntarily

signed it, he would maintain her health insurance

through October and wouldn’t: (1) contact the state

department of education, (2) allow anything to hap-

pen to her certications, or (3) dispute any future

unemployment compensation claim.

Even though the plaintiff signed the agreement, she

eventually led a suit against Cleareld and several

employees that made several claims. One was that ac-

cessing her personal Dropbox account had violated

her rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution.

The defendants led a motion to dismiss, claiming

the plaintiff could not have had the requisite “reason-

able expectation of privacy” in information she stored

in the Dropbox application.

The district court judge explained that public em-

ployees were entitled to a reasonable expectation of

privacy in their ofces, desks and le cabinets.

However, he said the “reasonable expectation of

privacy” test had been much harder to deal with be-

cause of modern technology. He also said the U.S.

Supreme Court had instructed courts to proceed with

care when considering the entire concept of privacy

expectations in communications that were made on

electronic equipment that was owned and provided

by a government employer.

The judge noted that even though the plaintiff was

authorized to use the Dropbox application for work-

related matters, only the one skydiving photograph

accessible in that application had been transferred

into her work les.

EMPLOYEE WINS ➔ The judge refused to dismiss

the claim, ruling that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged

a reasonable expectation of privacy that was violated

by the unauthorized access of her Dropbox account.

[Frankhouser v. Clearfield County Career and

Technology Center, et al., U.S. District Court for the

Western District of Pennsylvania, No. 3:18-cv-180,

03/19/19].

Sexual harassment

Judge rules against county in sexual

harassment suit

A year after Franklin County hired the plaintiff to

work as a building inspector in 2013, a new county

building ofcial became her supervisor.

According to the plaintiff, that new supervisor

sexually harassed her for months. She claimed it had

started out with comments regarding her attractive-

ness but escalated into increasingly inappropriate

behavior, such as offering to perform oral sex on her.

Beginning in the summer of 2015, the supervisor

allegedly: (1) touched her breasts on several occa-

sions, (2) forced her to kiss him many times and (3)

placed his hand on her genital area.

According to the plaintiff, the supervisor ignored

her many attempts to stop his behavior and told her

she would be red if he saw her near the human re-

sources department.

In November 2015, the supervisor purportedly

placed his hands under her bra. At that time, the

plaintiff allegedly banged her st on the desk and

said, “That’s it.... You’re going to stop touching me

now. No more. Leave me alone. Stop.”

According to the plaintiff, the supervisor then

became “cold” and “mean.”

In February 2016, the plaintiff met with an HR

representative because the supervisor had given

her a list of reasons why she was going to be red.

She told the HR employee the details of the alleged

sexual harassment. She also said the supervisor’s list

contained fabrications invented to retaliate against

her for nally stopping it. The HR employee alleg-

edly responded that the county probably wouldn’t

do anything because that supervisor was a “golden

child,” and the plaintiff probably wouldn’t be able to

work for another local government again.

The plaintiff was red a few days later for the

stated reasons of: (1) abusing county time for personal

business, (2) insubordination, (3) leaving during work

hours without permission and (4) unauthorized use

or misuse of county property.

The plaintiff led a suit claiming she was actually

red in retaliation for complaining about the sexual

harassment.

The county led a motion for summary judgment,

arguing that the plaintiff had never engaged in pro-

tected activity, because she never complained to any-

one in management other than her alleged harasser.