University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Bond & United States v. Baltimore Department of Public Works EE-MD-0133
Docket / Court 1:04-cv-00269-PWG ( D. Md. )
State/Territory Maryland
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Case Summary
On January 30, 2004, the plaintiff, a female carpenter with the City of Baltimore Department of Public Works, filed a lawsuit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981e in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the City of Baltimore Department of Public Works (the "City"). The ... read more >
On January 30, 2004, the plaintiff, a female carpenter with the City of Baltimore Department of Public Works, filed a lawsuit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981e in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the City of Baltimore Department of Public Works (the "City"). The plaintiff asked the court for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief, alleging that the defendant discriminated on the basis of gender by subjecting the plaintiff to repeated instances of sexual harassment.

The complaint alleges that the City discriminated on the basis of gender by: (1) making sexual harassing statements; (2) exposing themselves on the job; (3) grabbing, fondling, and hugging other men as if to imitate what they would do to plaintiff; and (4) failing to protect plaintiff from intentional sexual behavior.

On February 24, 2004, the United States filed an intervenor complaint alleging the defendant: (1) failed or refused to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discrimination against the plaintiff and (2) by way of the plaintiff's supervisor, exposed his genitals, displayed pornography in the workplace, simulated sexual acts.

On December 3, 2004, a consent decree was entered by the District Court (Judge Paul W. Grimm) that stated: (1) the defendant shall offer the individual plaintiff a monetary award; (2) the City shall not subject the plaintiff to discrimination because of her sex, or retaliate against her; (3) the defendant is enjoined from subjecting any employee to sexual harassment; and (4) the defendant shall provide mandatory training regarding sexual harassment for all employees.

This case is closed.

Erin Forman - 11/04/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Defendant-type
Sanitation/Public Works
Discrimination-area
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Defendant(s) City of Baltimore Department of Public Works
Plaintiff Description A female employee (carpenter), and United States
Indexed Lawyer Organizations U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2004 - 2006
Case Closing Year 2004
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Microsoft Gender Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
Date: Oct. 14, 2016
By: Outten & Golden
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Age Discrimination Class Action seeks Fair Employment for Older PwC Applicants
http://www.pwcagecase.com/
Date: Apr. 27, 2016
By: Outten & Golden
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Smith Barney Gender Discrimination
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/employment/smith-barney/
Date: August 2008
By: Outten & Golden
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Date: Mar. 1, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
Date: Apr. 1, 2001
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:04-cv-00269 (D. Md.)
EE-MD-0133-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/03/2004
General Documents
Complaint
EE-MD-0133-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/30/2004
Order (D. Md.)
EE-MD-0133-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2004
Consent Decree
EE-MD-0133-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/08/2004
Judges Grimm, Paul William (D. Md.)
EE-MD-0133-0001 | EE-MD-0133-0002 | EE-MD-0133-0003 | EE-MD-0133-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Fenton, William B. (District of Columbia)
EE-MD-0133-0003 | EE-MD-0133-9000
Gardner, Leslie M. (District of Columbia)
EE-MD-0133-0003 | EE-MD-0133-9000
Geller, Clare F (District of Columbia)
EE-MD-0133-0003 | EE-MD-0133-9000
Martin, Lolita (District of Columbia)
EE-MD-0133-0003 | EE-MD-0133-9000
Niles, Sara Lewenberg (District of Columbia)
EE-MD-0133-0003 | EE-MD-0133-9000
Palmer, David J. (District of Columbia)
EE-MD-0133-0003 | EE-MD-0133-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Cherry, Ronald M. (Maryland)
EE-MD-0133-0003 | EE-MD-0133-9000
Ki, John (Maryland)
EE-MD-0133-0003 | EE-MD-0133-9000
Myers, Eric (Pennsylvania)
EE-MD-0133-0003 | EE-MD-0133-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -