finding that the statement of one of the defendant’s supervisors that there was “talk” about plaintiffs termination in a neighboring town was insufficient to show that information was communicated outside the protected circle of privilege
How later courts described this case
- finding that the statement of one of the defendant’s supervisors that there was “talk” about plaintiffs termination in a neighboring town was insufficient to show that information was communicated outside the protected circle of privilege
- stating that “federal law imposes a specific duty upon émployers to protect the workplace and the workers from sexual harassment, including redressing known occurrences of sexual harassment”
- noting that “[a]ll employees, not just supervisors, are subject to discharge for sexual harassment” and therefore have a legitimate interest in their employer’s sexual harassment policy
- recognizing that state and federal laws “condemn sexual harassment as a matter of public policy”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*397 GARWOOD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
With respect to malice, although I am inclined to believe that the evidence as recited in Judge Garza’s opinion is sufficient to present a question for the jury, I agree that the remand need not embrace that issue since, as Judge Garza points out, the jury found against the plaintiff on that matter. In all other respects, I join in Judge Garza’s persuasive opinion.