GOODY TWO SHOES: Those Who Live In Glass Houses …
U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter has ruled that a plaintiff who claims that her boss' sexual innuendo was offensive and humiliating must allow the jury to consider whether E-mails she exchanged with co-workers and friends suggest that her own sense of humor was similarly ribald, reports The Legal Intelligencer:
Since a sexual harassment plaintiff must satisfy both an objective and a subjective test when aiming to show a hostile work environment, Pratter said, the defense lawyer must be given the right to explore the plaintiff's own workplace speech habits in an effort to undermine her claim that she was offended.
Though the plaintiff’s attorney tried to suppress the E-mails under Rule 412 ("Relevance of Victim's Past Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposition") the judge agreed with the defendant’s attorney that “the issue was not Seybert's sexual history, but only her sexual banter with co-workers.”
[Hat Tip: The Heel, an Ivy-educated attorney with a prestigious New York firm, and occasional contributor to this blog.]
Comments