Properly address sexual harassment allegations or let a jury decide your fate

A federal court decision from January 2025 from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania provides facts that, if true, would demonstrate a complete failure to properly act. The case, Uchitel v. Solid Waste Services, will head to a jury after the court refused to grant summary judgment in favor of the employer.

According to the case, employee Alvia Uchitel, a female, was hired as an office manager at the solid waste transfer center. She alleged that the general manager, a male, engaged in repeated actionable harassment and retaliation.

She alleges that within months after working at the station, she was told she needed to socialize more with the male drivers. She understood him to mean she needed to flirt with him and other men and socialize more than on a professional level while at work.

As a prank, later that day, the general manager called her pretending that a fictious customer was purportedly upset with a driver because the customer could see him “pleasuring himself” in the truck. She could hear the general manager and coworkers laughing. The general manager approached her and told her it was her “initiation.” Ms. Uchitel left work “humiliated.”

Three days later the general manager brought meatloaf sandwiches for a staff lunch. During the lunch the general manager asked Ms. Uchitel if she was “ready to taste his meat;” if she “liked having his meat in her mouth;” if she “liked tasting his meat.” She testified it was “very clear” he was making sexually-related comments.

Ms. Uchitel reported the misconduct to human resources. This is where the breakdown occurred.

HR met with Ms. Uchitel and then sent her an email her stating that she agreed she was satisfied with settling this issue as long as the general manager keeps the work environment professional and treats her with respect. The email said, “I spoke to [the general manager] yesterday and reviewed the incident with him, he agreed that he would keep the work environment professional going forward.”

Employers — this is not the right response. Do not respond to a claim of harassment in this way. A stern talking to is not enough. Instead, the general manager should have been fired, but at a minimum received a final warning and training on professionalism in the workplace. That didn’t happen. What did happen allegedly is retaliation.

The employee resigned and sued for hostile work environment and retaliation.

The court held that the alleged harassment was sufficiently pervasive or severe to constitute harassment and go to a jury.

The court similarly determined that a week after she complained about the sexual harassment, the general manager engaged in behaviors to include yelling at her, unfairly criticizing her behavior and making unreasonable demands. The court held that this could constitute materially adverse action in that it would likely deter victims of discrimination from complaining about discrimination. Therefore, the jury can determine whether the actions constituted retaliation.

The plaintiff also sued for constructive discharge. The court agreed that the plaintiff could proceed to a jury on that issue as well. The court relied upon an email from human resources to the plaintiff after she complained of retaliation telling her that her manager had a right to manage and do as he saw fit. The court held that there is a question as to whether her working conditions were so intolerable she felt no other choice than resign.

Creating a civil workplace begins with prevention — policies prohibiting harassment and retaliation and training managers and employees on those expectations.

If, despite prevention efforts, someone violates those policies, the organization must act promptly and appropriately. Ignoring a problem or merely talking to an offender is not enough. If an employee claims she or he is satisfied with an outcome — that isn’t the test. The obligation is for the employer to take steps to show that the behavior will stop and to prevent retaliation.

Employers also need to make sure they have hired and support competent and trained human resources professionals to address complex employee relations matters — including an understanding of the legal obligations.