Excerpt
Reversed and remanded as to BOLI's conclusion that Kaiser, Mitchell, and Struhar aided and abetted sexual harassment and were joint and severally liable; otherwise affirmed.
What This Ruling Means
**Frehoo, Inc. v. BOLI: Sexual Harassment Liability Ruling**
This case involved a sexual harassment complaint that was investigated by Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI). BOLI had concluded that three individuals - Kaiser, Mitchell, and Struhar - helped enable sexual harassment at Frehoo, Inc. and were personally responsible for damages along with the company.
The court partially disagreed with BOLI's decision. While the court upheld most of BOLI's findings, it reversed the conclusion that these three individuals aided and abetted the sexual harassment. The court sent this specific issue back to BOLI to reconsider whether these individuals should be held personally liable alongside the company.
**What this means for workers:** This ruling shows that courts will carefully review who can be held personally responsible in harassment cases. While companies are typically liable for workplace harassment, individual employees or managers aren't automatically on the hook just because harassment occurred. However, the case also demonstrates that state agencies like BOLI actively investigate harassment complaints and can hold both companies and individuals accountable when appropriate. Workers should know that harassment investigations can result in multiple parties being held responsible, though courts will scrutinize these decisions to ensure they're legally sound.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.