Harassment Cases
1,643 employment law court rulings from public federal records (1977–2026)
About Harassment Claims
Workplace harassment involves unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic that creates a hostile or intimidating work environment. To be actionable, harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment. Employers may be liable for harassment by supervisors, coworkers, or even non-employees in certain circumstances.
Case Outcomes
Related Laws
Top Employers in Harassment Cases
Employers most frequently appearing in harassment rulings.
Court Rulings (1,643)
Whether a state-run Alabama university can open an office in North Carolina, recruit students for its on-line programs, and subsequently enjoy sovereign immunity when a North Carolina employee alleges and sues the university for sexual harassment.
Whether a state-run Alabama university can open an office in North Carolina, recruit students for its on-line programs, and subsequently enjoy sovereign immunity when a North Carolina employee alleges and sues the university for sexual harassment.
Affirming a business court order and opinion based on its proper application of the law of attorney-client privilege to communications with an outside law firm made in the course of investigation of alleged violations of company's sexual harassment policy.
The defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities appealed from the judgment of the trial court vacating the damages award granted by its human rights referee to the defendant employee, P, for garden- variety emotional distress in a sexual harassment complaint against the plaintiff employer. During a public hearing before the referee, P testified that the harassing and discriminatory conduct of M, who was her direct supervisor while she was employed by the plaintiff, made her feel uncom- fortable, stressed, and nervous and caused her to become depressed. On direct examination, she was not asked about, and did not testify regarding, any medical treatment that she received relating to her depres- sion. On cross-examination, however, the plaintiff's counsel questioned P regarding the professional treatment that she sought as a result of the emotional distress M had caused and asked why she had not pro- duced any medical records relating to such treatment. The plaintiff's counsel continued this line of questioning even after the referee ruled that P was not required to produce any medical records because she was claiming only garden-variety emotional distress. With the exception of her testimony in response to the questions of the plaintiff's counsel, P did not offer any evidence regarding her medical treatment. The referee found in favor of P and awarded her back pay and damages for garden- variety emotional distress. The plaintiff appealed to the trial court, which vacated the referee's damages award, and the commission appealed to this court. Held that the trial court erred when it vacated the referee's damages award because it incorrectly concluded that the plaintiff was prejudiced by P's failure to disclose her medical records: the referee did not abuse her discretion when she awarded P damages for garden- variety emotional distress because our Supreme Court in Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert (343 Conn. 90) made clear that, where a claimant limits h
Showing 451–500 of 1,643 rulings · Page 10 of 33
Browse Other Claim Types
Explore rulings by type of employment law claim.
Think you may have a harassment claim?
Check which employment laws may protect you — free, private, and no sign-up required.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The classification of claim types is based on automated analysis and may not reflect the full scope of each case.