Pryor v. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather and Geraldson Case Brief
Summary of Pryor v. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, U.S. Ct./Appeals, 7th Circuit(2000)
Cause of action: The following is a cause of action for appeal from dismissal of suit, on motion for summary judgment for sexual harassment, and for retaliation for complaining about it.
Procedural History: Lower court dismissed both the harassment and retaliation suits vs. DF.
Facts: PL moves for both complaints to be reinstated on the basis of five separate incidents which she says were harassment. PL adds that just three months after the complaint was filed, she was fired for something which would normally not result in a firing. She contends DF fired her out of retaliation. DF insists there was no harassment or firing linked to the initial complaint instituted by PL.
Issue(s): Under federal rules of civil procedure, is there enough information based on five separate incidents to restore a claim for sexual harassment when the lower court dismissed the charge?
Under federal rules of civil procedure, is there enough sufficient evidence to reinstate the retaliation charge when it was also dismissed by the lower court?
How much proof does one need to reestablish a charge on the appellate level?
Court’s Rationale/Reasoning: The charge on the first count is unfounded, even though they do indeed teeter in the realm of vile, however, the second charge does have some merit. The evidence presented shows at least the possibility there could be some instances of DF trying to wait out a certain period before firing PL after her initial complaint.
Rule: The evidence in question for any charge must be enough on its face in order for a charge to stand and be
Holding: No. The five incidents did not mount up to a charge of harassment.
Yes. The evidence in question does link at least the possibility of retaliation by DF to PL.