“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A woman appealed a grant of summary judgment against her in a case in which she charged her employer with responsibility for sexual harassment.
What happened in this case?
Alma Sanchez has worked for seven years at an El Milagro tortilla manufacturing facility in Illinois. One of her co-workers, she has contended, sexually harassed her on several occasions, including one when he was “rubbing his genitals” against her buttocks. She complained to management, which did not fire the co-worker or take other action sufficient to remedy the hostile work environment that had been created. She filed a lawsuit against the company under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for sexual harassment and, in particular, its failure to take appropriate action in light of her allegations.
A federal district court granted summary judgment against Ms Sanchez and in favor of El Milagro. She appealed to the Seventh Circuit. Trump judge Thomas Kirsch cast the deciding vote to uphold the decision in an opinion by Reagan judge Kenneth Ripple in the May ruling in Sanchez v El Milagro Inc..Biden judge John Lee dissented
What was the rationale of the majority and what else did Trump Judge Kirsch say?
In a part of Ripple’s opinion joined only by Judge Lee, the court ruled that based on the record, Sanchez’s co-worker committed “the type of sexual harassment that the law was designed to prevent.” But in a section joined only by Judge Kirsch, Ripple wrote that the record also showed that El Milagro had acted reasonably and was not “negligent in fulfilling its responsibilities in responding to the situation,” and accordingly affirmed the judgment below.
Trump judge Kirsch was much more favorable to El Milagro, writing that in his view, Sanchez had not shown a “hostile work environment” and sexual harassment in violation of Title VII. He explicitly disagreed with the majority’s characterization of the incidents as “unwanted intimate bodily intrusions”, claiming that they were “fleeting and ambiguous.”
Why did Judge Lee dissent?
According to Judge Lee’s view of the record, there was a “genuine dispute of material fact” as to whether Sanchez had sufficiently notified management that her co-worker was intentionally harassing her and as to whether El Milagro is liable. The alleged conduct, he wrote, was “sufficiently egregious to alter her work environment.” He accordingly maintained that the case should be sent to a jury for resolution.
Why is the ruling harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Kirsch obviously harms Alma Sanchez in her effort to get justice for the sexual harassment she suffered at work. It also sets a troubling precedent on employer liability for sexual harassment, particularly in the Seventh Circuit, which includes Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The ruling also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.