1,947 employment law court rulings from public federal records (1904–2026)
A hostile work environment claim requires showing that unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic was severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive working environment. Courts consider the frequency, severity, and nature of the conduct, as well as whether it unreasonably interfered with the employee's work performance. Both the subjective experience and an objective standard are evaluated.
Employers most frequently appearing in hostile work environment rulings.
1. For a state employer to be held vicariously liable for an employee's intentional tort under the Minnesota State Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes section 3.736 (2022), the tort must: (1) be related to the duties of the employee; and (2) occur within work-related limits of time and place—consistent with the common law standard under which the employer, if a private person, would be vicariously liability. 2. The district court erred when dismissing a complaint against the Minnesota Department of Corrections for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the facts alleged in the complaint—including a state employee's perpetration of a sexual assault and sexual harassment—could allow a jury to find that the state employee was acting within the scope of office or employment under circumstances where the Department would be liable under the common law for vicarious liability. Affirmed.
gender discrimination, hostile work environment, negligent retention/supervision, motion to dismiss, Civ.R. 12(B)(6), statute of limitations, directed verdict, similarly situated employee, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, JNOV, Civ.R. 50(B), Evid.R. 702, attorney fees, prejudgment interest
Explore rulings by type of employment law 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.