# Richard GARZIANO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO., Defendant-Appellant

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · June 3, 1987 · 818 F.2d 380

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476169

## Case

- **Full name:** 43 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1790, 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,171, 2 indiv.empl.rts.cas. 272 Richard Garziano v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 3, 1987
- **Citations:** 818 F.2d 380; 43 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1790; 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 272; 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 37,171; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 7089
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Garwood
- **Judges:** Garza, Williams, Garwood
- **Cited by:** 48 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476169

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- noting that “employers have an affirmative duty to eradicate ‘hostile or offensive’ work environments”

## Opinion text

*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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476169. Public record. Not legal advice.