D.C. Circuit Upholds Large Jury Verdict in Favor of Male Sexual Harassment Victim
1 min read
Jun 25, 2012
A prominent female lobbyist employed her former personal trainer, a Serbian immigrant, at her lobbying firm and agreed to sponsor his H-1B visa so that he could stay in the United States. Over the course of his three-year employment with the firm, the employee claimed that he was consistently harassed with sexual propositions and innuendo by his female supervisor.
Although the employee rebuffed his supervisor's advances, he claimed that the supervisor attempted to control the employee’s personal life, including forbidding him from dating other women, by reminding him that his immigration status depended on her. The employee was terminated and filed a lawsuit for sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation pursuant to the DC Human Rights Act. The jury awarded the employee $800,000 in damages for his sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims, and $12,000 for retaliation. On the employee's fee motion, the trial judge awarded an additional $455, 730. The employer appealed, arguing various instructional and evidentiary errors at the trial court level. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals found those errors to be "harmless," and firmly affirmed the judgment and award. This case serves as a reminder to employers that though the majority of sexual harassment cases involve female plaintiffs, the law applies equally to both genders. It is important to have clear anti-harassment policies in place and to ensure that employees, particularly supervisors and decision-makers, are timely trained on these policies.
Featured Insights

Webinar
Oct 29, 2026
Carol Rooney Presents on Building a Career in Appellate Practice

In The News
Oct 28, 2026
James Ferrara Comments in The New York Times on Stalled Boca Raton Luxury Condo Project

Insights for Insurers Alert
Oct 28, 2026
Insurance and Reinsurance Commutations, Run-Off, and Loss Portfolio Transfers

Healthcare Alert
Oct 27, 2026
Illinois Medical Aid-in-Dying Law Takes Effect Amid Legal Challenges

In The News
Oct 26, 2026
Scott Seaman Examines the Insurance Coverage Implications of a Recent NFL Concussion Ruling

In The News
Oct 23, 2026
Michael Dowell Discusses Potential Impact of Proposition 44 on California Community Clinics

In The News
Oct 21, 2026
Scott Seaman Says Walmart Ruling is an "Aberration" in the Opioid Insurance Battle

Event
October 21 – 23, 2026
D.L. Morriss Presents on International Banking Litigation and AI Regulation




