Woman wins $95m in Sexual Harassment case

SparkyTech

Thought the case in Ireland where the sleepwalker was awarded a few mula was extreme? This takes compensation to the next level, shes probably only going to be awarded 39m instead of 95 though. :eek:

EAST ST. LOUIS -- A federal jury awarded $95 million to a female employee of an O'Fallon rental store who sued after she said she was pinched, groped, harassed, then sexually assaulted by the store's manager.

After a three-week trial before U.S. District Judge Michael Reagan, the jury deliberated for four days before delivering the award Wednesday against Aaron's Inc. It may be the largest sexual harassment award to a single plaintiff in Southern Illinois.

"We are very, very happy that this jury held Aaron's accountable for their actions," said plaintiff's attorney Judy Cates, of Swansea. "The folks on this jury worked very hard and followed their conscience when they delivered their decision."


The award will be reduced to around $39 million because of federal caps on sexual harassment awards, Cates said.

Aaron's executives stated they do not believe the award reflects the evidence presented during the trial, according to a news release on the company's website.

"Aaron's is extremely disappointed with the jury's verdict and believes that the award does not accurately reflect the evidence that was presented in this case," said Chad Strickland, vice president of associate resources for Aaron's Inc. "We feel strongly that this verdict is the result of a decision made by a classic runaway jury, and because of that, we are confident that the damages will be greatly reduced. We intend to appeal the verdict and seek a fairer and more equitable outcome."

The victim, who was 20 when she worked at the Aaron's store at 2035 W. Highway 50 in O'Fallon from 2005 through 2007, alleged the store's general manager, 45-year-old Richard G. Moore, of St. Charles, Mo., made lewd comments, pinched her, bought her clothes and chocolates and demanded sexual favors in return, and placed his penis on her head as she sat on the stockroom floor.

On Oct. 12, 2006, the woman alleged that Moore held her down on the floor, exposed her breasts and masturbated over her.
Police arrested Moore, who was later charged with criminal sexual abuse. His trial is set for Sept. 26.

Greg Roosevelt, Moore's attorney, could not be reached for comment.
Months before Moore's arrest, the employee called the corporation's sexual harassment hot line and was later approached by the Aaron's district manager, who confronted her about her allegations, but never investigated the claims and didn't take action to stop the harassment, the suit stated.
The district manager also told Moore to "watch his back."
In February 2007, the victim filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She was told by her supervisor, who confronted her about the complaint, "you shouldn't have done that." The victim quit and then filed a federal lawsuit the next year.

chin_grin

It's "moolah".

SparkyTech

chin_grin wrote: »

It's "moolah".

I say mula since childhood :P

Overheal

1) 39 million is not 95 million.

2) Not only was the manager allegedly a sick ****, but the company did nothing about it, and then they told the manager about her complaint, who then threatened her about it. Entirely illegal under harassment laws. You are legally protected from any backlash for reporting a harassment violation. And the same thing happened again when she went over the company's head. 2 for 2. If they had done their job the first time, he wouldn't have pinned her down and violated her. But for them to actually tell her even after all of that, that going to the EOC was the wrong thing to do, is unreal.

I for one would expect them to cough up.

SteoL

The victim, who was 20 when she worked at the Aaron's store at 2035 W. Highway 50 in O'Fallon from 2005 through 2007, alleged the store's general manager, 45-year-old Richard G. Moore, of St. Charles, Mo., made lewd comments, pinched her, bought her clothes and chocolates and demanded sexual favors in return, and placed his penis on her head as she sat on the stockroom floor.

HAHAHA funniest thing I've read in ages. Nice one OP.

Jesus, that poor woman. That's awful.

Anyway it was 39, not 95 and possibly will be reduced again

SparkyTech

Overheal wrote: »

1) 39 million is not 95 million.

The Jury felt it was an appropriate sum, albeit this wont be the final amount but its still a sizable cheque

Not only was the manager allegedly a sick ****, but the company did nothing about it, and then they told the manager about her complaint, who then threatened her about it. Entirely illegal under harassment laws. You are legally protected from any backlash for reporting a harassment violation.

I for one would expect them to cough up.

I think a spell in prison for him would be more appropriate tbh.

The_B_Man

Who cares....

All I know is, I'm gonna have to start dressing even more provocatively!!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Only 39 mil???

sbsquarepants

For 39 million, the boss can strap me to the desk and the entire board of directors can take turns on my pasty white ass :eek:

Biggins

The fine I suspect was not just to reward her and/or compensate her - but was also punitive damages in nature.
One done in order to inflict a lesson and a warning to others by secondary effect!

Fair play to the woman in not letting it drop. Right on!

Overheal

SparkyTech wrote: »

I think a spell in prison for him would be more appropriate tbh.

He's already in prison since 2006 for pinning her down, exposing her breasts and masturbating over her. That was after she complained to her Human Resource Department. That was after they ignored her complaint, and then they told the guy about the complaint of all things. Who then threatened her about her complaint, and then a couple months later, sexually assaulted her. Oh, he is in jail alright.

But the Company is still on the hook. They failed to uphold harassment law on several counts. That doesn't wash away because their district manager is in a cell.

7Sins

Well I suppose since she's so traumatised she might never work again and no doubt she would've earned 39 million in her life if she was, right?

:rolleyes:

Wile E. Coyote

7Sins wrote: »

Well I suppose since she's so traumatised she might never work again and no doubt she would've earned 39 million in her life if she was, right?

:rolleyes:

What has it got to do with how much she'd earn over her life time? She was sexually assaulted and threatened and her employers did nothing to stop it.

Overheal

7Sins wrote: »

Well I suppose since she's so traumatised she might never work again and no doubt she would've earned 39 million in her life if she was, right?

:rolleyes:

Don't be daft. That is all.

She was sexually assaulted and threatened and her employers did nothing to stop it.

And then in the aftermath they warned her not to pursue it with the EOC.

Kojak

Where's Sexual Harassment Panda when you want him?

Fran1985

SteoL wrote: »

HAHAHA funniest thing I've read in ages. Nice one OP.

me too, i nearly choked on my sandwich.

bonerm

Take THAT East St. Louis!

Latchy

Quote -

She was told by her supervisor, who confronted her about the complaint, "you shouldn't have done that." The victim quit and then filed a federal lawsuit the next year.

Lol ..... Oh fcuking right she should and anybody else for that matter , take em to the cleaners and sue their sorry ass's of .

Neyite

The victim, who was 20 when she worked at the Aaron's store at 2035 W. Highway 50 in O'Fallon from 2005 through 2007, alleged the store's general manager, 45-year-old Richard G. Moore, of St. Charles, Mo., made lewd comments, pinched her, bought her clothes and chocolates and demanded sexual favors in return, and placed his penis on her head as she sat on the stockroom floor.

HAHAHA funniest thing I've read in ages. Nice one OP.

Sexual Assault is funny?

Evil_Clown

His name is Richard Moore aka Dick Moore
you couldn't make this stuff up !!!!!

GerM

Whatever about the award, is it not odd that this has been awarded despite the fact that the accused is yet to stand trial and could be acquitted at this point?

Overheal

GerM wrote: »

Whatever about the award, is it not odd that this has been awarded despite the fact that the accused is yet to stand trial and could be acquitted at this point?

They wouldn't have gone this far without any evidence. It's as much to do with the District Manager as it is the Company, who ignored her complaints, enacted no/no serious investigation into the matter and themselves broke harassment law by allowing the DM to threaten her for filing a complaint with the Company and themselves threatening her for filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Dangerous Man

Good. I'm glad. Your man was a right... dickhead.

Biggins

GerM wrote: »

Whatever about the award, is it not odd that this has been awarded despite the fact that the accused is yet to stand trial and could be acquitted at this point?

Not really.
It was possibly the utter failure of proper action by the company to see that workers could go about their duties in a safe environment - but not even doing that but in a strange way, even allowing it to continue by the way higher heads carried on in the face of the abused womans treatment.

bonerm

Evil_Clown wrote: »

His name is Richard Moore aka Dick Moore
you couldn't make this stuff up !!!!!

His friends call him The Lad.

SteoL

Neyite wrote: »

Sexual Assault is funny?

Not really but placing your penis on someones head while they sit on the stockroom floor is hilarious.

mcmoustache

This was a clear case of sexual harassment. An open and shut case. I don't see any issue with the sum awarded here.

Sangre

GerM wrote: »

Whatever about the award, is it not odd that this has been awarded despite the fact that the accused is yet to stand trial and could be acquitted at this point?

Different laws and therefore different obligations i.e., civil vs criminal. In addition, to impose a civil liability the plaintiff only needs to show their case on the balance of probabilities. However, a prosecutor in a criminal trial must show their case beyond all reasonable doubt i.e., a much high standard. Therefore, it is quite possible to be committed for a civil offence but acquitted for a criminal one. Take OJ Simpson for example. And finally, I presume too different parties face action in the civil/criminal trials, namely the company and then the manager himself resceptively.

This has been pointed out already but the amount awarded had nothing to do with what the jury felt the woman could have earned or even what she deserved after the harrassment. The amount was simply how much the jury felt the company should be punished for its actions i.e., punatitive. It just so happens that plaintiff receives the punititive award. This is why you hear of these huge awards in America where a defendant's behavoir has been particularly repugnant.

Overheal

I think she already stated she wants to put some of the money to a relevant charity or association to deal with harassment in the workplace. She won't hang onto it all.

Elmidena

bought her clothes and chocolates and demanded sexual favors in return

Did she happily wear and eat these? Did she stop working on the first instance? I reckon there's more to it than we're seeing, that they had a nice little relationship and he wouldn't leave his wife for her or something, so she went sour and THEN reported it.

IMO, big difference between "If you want this expensive lingerie you're gonna have to let me place my phallus on your scalp" and physically forcing her to stay put while he did it. There are teeth in that region after all...

As for the masturbating on her breasts, to pin her down and play with himself he'd in all likelihood would have to sit on her crotch, rip her clothes open if they weren't already, pin her hands together with one hand and pleasure himself with the other free hand. If there was any kind of a struggle and she was sincere about making this stop, she would've gone to the cops at that point, not the sexual harrassment hotline.

I could be entirely wrong, but it's just not adding up for me.

EDIT: I realise I misread it initially and there's no specified timeline between the masturbation and the police visit

thebigbiffo

have to say i'm a little bit on sunshines side here. how exactly do you expose a womans breasts, hold her down and masturbate on her.

i've found from experience these things take a lot of time and effort and normally some form of participation by the person you are masturbating on...

the flowers, chocolates and clothes too . hardly the actions of a serial rapist. me thinks there was more to this story than the court was told...

WindSock

This same article was in the mail last week with a pic of her in a slutty halloween costume taken from her MySpace page 3 years after. So she was obviously ok....

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

GLaDOS

Overheal wrote: »

I think she already stated she wants to put some of the money to a relevant charity or association to deal with harassment in the workplace. She won't hang onto it all.

I would hope so, and if this is the case, I would consider justice done.

biko

We are very, very happy

I should think so

NomdePlume

Sunshine! wrote: »

As for the masturbating on her breasts, to pin her down and play with himself he'd in all likelihood would have to sit on her crotch, rip her clothes open if they weren't already, pin her hands together with one hand and pleasure himself with the other free hand. If there was any kind of a struggle and she was sincere about making this stop, she would've gone to the cops at that point, not the sexual harrassment hotline.

I could be entirely wrong, but it's just not adding up for me.

You can make a person "co-operate" by threatening them, you know. Lie there and shut up or I'll kick your head in / hurt your family, etc.

Accepting gifts does not mean you are inviting/enjoying an assault, either, in any way.

Depressing how quick people are to get suspicious of her.

Seachmall

NomdePlume wrote: »

Accepting gifts does not mean you are inviting/enjoying an assault, either, in any way.

Absolutely not but it's not exactly a strong way of saying "no".

These cases can be extremely complicated, she may not have wanted to do these things and he may not have realized that because she never made it clear to him. She felt coerced because he was the boss, he thought she was up for it because she seemed to be. Relationships in the military are banned for this very reason.

GLaDOS

Seachmall wrote: »

he thought she was up for it because she seemed to be.

"She accepted my gifts, she clearly wants me to rip her top open and **** all over her"

Makes sense...

Busi_Girl08

Sunshine! wrote: »

Did she happily wear and eat these? Did she stop working on the first instance? I reckon there's more to it than we're seeing, that they had a nice little relationship and he wouldn't leave his wife for her or something, so she went sour and THEN reported it.

Where does it say she accepted the gifts?

Seachmall

ScienceNerd wrote: »

"She accepted my gifts, she clearly wants me to rip her top open and **** all over her"

Makes sense...

No. more like he comes onto her and she responds positively because she feels she'd lose her job if she didn't. He thinks she's up for it, she feels coerced.

It happens all the time. We don't know the details of the case but it could've happened here.

NomdePlume

Seachmall wrote: »

No. more like he comes onto her and she responds positively because she feels she'd lose her job if she didn't. He thinks she's up for it, she feels coerced.

It happens all the time. We don't know the details of the case but it could've happened here.

So... he placed his penis on top of her head as a "come on"? :rolleyes:

It was a way to humiliate and degrade her, obviously. Nothing to do with crossed wires or thinking she likes him.

Seachmall

NomdePlume wrote: »

So... he placed his penis on top of her head as a "come on"? :rolleyes:

No. He may have thought they were already in a relationship.

It was a way to humiliate and degrade her, obviously. Nothing to do with crossed wires or thinking she likes him.

I'm not denying he's a creep, the question is whether or not he was intentionally harassing her or if he was just an idiot.

Elmidena

Busi_Girl08 wrote: »

Where does it say she accepted the gifts?

Think you'll find m'dear that I asked questions, I didn't give any indication of the answer. It DIDN'T say that, which is why I asked DID she?

NomdePlume: You can make a person "co-operate" by threatening them, you know. Lie there and shut up or I'll kick your head in / hurt your family, etc.

Accepting gifts does not mean you are inviting/enjoying an assault, either, in any way.

Depressing how quick people are to get suspicious of her.

I am quite familiar with the workings of emotional abuse. I was pointing out that there's a lot of answers that would affect a court outcome omitted in the information we've learned, and hopefully that is included in relevant statements. When the overall sum is a sickening multimillion figure, answers should not be omitted.

Sexual assault is a very real, very frightening occurance, but I am not losing sight of "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" at the same time. I am not calling her a liar, I am pointing out the fundamental ignorances that are there.

NomdePlume

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm not denying he's a creep, the question is whether or not he was intentionally harassing her or if he was just an idiot.

I'm sure he was both.