Written by: Daun Lee
New York, NY- New York law firm, Faruqi & Faruqi, famous for taking on Wall Street, has filed a $15 million defamation suit against a former employee, who accused a partner of sexual harassment and forcing her to engage in a sexual act.
Last month, Alexandra Marchuk, a junior attorney with the firm, filed a scandalous sexual harassment lawsuit against the firm and partner Juan Monteverde.
Marchuk’s lawsuit alleges that Monteverde subjected her to inappropriate sexual comments and advances on a number of occasions beginning shortly after she began working for the firm and continued throughout her tenure. Marchuk said the ongoing harassment in resulted in a sexual assault in December of 2011. According to the lawsuit, Monteverde lured Marchuk into one of the firm’s offices and forced her to have sex with him, when she asked him to stop he refused and continued the assault.
In response to Maurchuk’s suit, Faruqi & Faruqi said her claims were without merit and were filed by a disgruntled employee. They vowed to fight the claims in court, they didn’t stop there; this week the firm filed a $15 million defamation lawsuit accusing Machuk of lying and using her sexual harassment suit to extort money from the firm, the New York Times reported.
In the suit, filed in a Manhattan Superior court, Faruqi & Faruqi, stated that Marchuk damaged the reputation of the firm, denying all accusations against Monteverde. “In fact, however, there was no sexual intercourse, forced or otherwise; there was no sexual harassment, and there were no complaints,” court documents obtained by the NY Times said. “Marchuk’s claims are false.”
Along with denying the accusations, the firm’s defamation suit included a detailed account of the relationship between Marchuk and Monteverde, painting the junior lawyer as a woman obsessed with her boss who initiated all sexual contact, including the assault in December.
Just after Marchuk began working with the firm she accompanied Monteverde on trip during which the firm says she engaged in consensual kissing and fondling with Monteverde and even invited him to her room for sex.
The incident in December, where Monteverde allegedly “quickly, forcefuly and painfully had sex” with Marchuk at a holiday party was initiated by her. The lawsuit claims Marchuk didn’t wear a bra or panties to the event, and was seen kissing and groping Monteverde by numerous employees, Business insider reported. She also performed oral sex on Monteverde because he was drunk and was unable to get an erection, the suit says, adding “Monteverde didn’t resist.”
In a statement given to Above the Law, Faruqi & Faruqi admitted Monteverde make a terrible mistake. “Although he exercised very poor judgment and has been disciplined by F&F, we are convinced that he did not commit sexual harassment, that our firm is not a hostile workplace…”
Marchuk’s attorney, Harry Lipman told the Business Times the defamation suit was “frivolous” including allegations which are “ a desperately telling attempt to blame the victim.”
Written by: Daun Lee
Miami Beach, FL- A jury awarded a Miami firefighter Marlenis Smart $700,000, but last week a judge overturned the settlement stating she did not sufficiently prove a pattern of pervasive and repeated sexual harassment.
Smart filed her lawsuit in 2010 after she was subjected to crude and vulgar comments from her fellow firefighters. In addition to the comments, Smart alleged in her lawsuit that a one of her colleagues walked in on her in the shower and a missing bathing was returned with semen stains.
When Smart asked that a lock be placed on one of the shower doors, she was handed a broom handle with the words “Smart Lock” written on it.
Following her trial, a jury awarded Smart $700,000, but U.S. District court judge Marcia G. Cooke overturned the decision stating that Smart didn’t provide sufficient evidence which showed the harassment was pervasive, the Miami Herald reported.
In her ruling Cooke said, “The incidents Ms. Smart identifies were single-occurring instances that, while inappropriate, vulgar, and offensive, were not severe. Given that there were three to four incidents over a five-year period, it certainly was not pervasive.”
“The evidence demonstrates that the behavior of Ms. Smart’s co-workers, again abhorrent and unprofessional, was related to personality conflicts with Ms. Smart or her co-workers perception of her being difficult to work and get along with,” Judge Cooke added.
Judge Cooke’s decision came after attorneys for the Miami Beach asked her to reverse the decision because they claimed the facts of the case did not support the verdict, the Miami Herald said.
City attorneys also allege that Smart and her mother tempered with witness testimony and threatened to accuse one firefighter of making sexual advances against Smart.
“The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that plaintiff and her mother attempted to prevent and/or alter the testimony of two witnesses,” Cooke wrote.
It is uncommon for judges to reverse jury awards unless they can be convinced that no reasonable jury could have reached the same verdict, the Herald said.
Last month Smart filed another lawsuit against the Miami Beach Fire Department alleging she was retaliated against. Her initial lawsuit also had a retaliation claim but that was dismissed. The Herald reported the new lawsuit also alleges she was falsely imprisoned when she was locked in a room for questioning while the police were called on her.
Smart said she would appeal the judge’s ruling, which means the city would be granted a new trial.
Smart’s case demonstrates the significant burden of proof required to have a successful sexual harassment case that results in a settlement. In many jurisdictions, a single incident or a few occurrences of inappropriate behavior are not enough to warrant a sexual harassment lawsuit. In order for a plaintiff in a sexual harassment suit to be awarded compensation, their attorney must prove the harassment was persistent and created a hostile work environment. As well as proving their client suffered emotional distress because of the misconduct, or were retaliated against for reporting the harassment.
Written by: Daun Lee
Los Angeles, CA- For the second time this month, the Los Angeles Police Department has been ordered to pay out a seven figure sum to settle harassment claims among its ranks. On Tuesday, a jury awarded Earl Wright $1.2 million after finding one of his supervisors and other officers racially harassed him while working in the central division, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Wright’s lawsuit detailed numerous accounts where his fellow officers make him the subject of racially-charged and loutish jokes and pranks. Wright’s direct supervisor Sgt. Peter Foster was named in the suit but the harassment
When Wright, who joined the force in 1989, was celebrating his 20th anniversary with the LAPD Foster presented him with a cake, in front of his peers, decorated with a piece of fried chicken and slice of watermelon.
The suit alleged that Wright told supervisors at the Central Division about the racial slurs, but nothing was done to stop the harassment.
In another incident, the LA Times reported, Wright asked Foster for the permission to leave early one day to which Foster replied; “Why? You gotta go pick watermelons?”
In the suit, Wright stated the behavior left him feeling, “embarrassed and humiliated,” and that the LAPD did nothing to stop the racial harassment after he complained.
But lawyers maintained in court that Wright was a willing participant, and he, too, made jokes about other races. A fellow African-America officer testified that it was he and not Foster who decorated the cake and Wright laughed along with his fellow workers, sliced a piece and ate the chicken on top, the LA times said.
In their decision, the jury found that the LAPD’s harassment reporting procedures were “ineffective,” and decided to award Wright $1.2 million dollars to settle the case.
This is the second time this month the LAPD has been forced to settle an harassment claim. Two openly gay female officers claimed they were sexually harassed, and their superiors allowed the conduct to persist despite their complaints; a jury awarded them $1.25.
All in all, employment discrimination and harassment claims filed by public workers cost the California taxpayers millions each year.
Being a LAPD police officer is a tough job, and they should be allowed to blow off some steam, but it is up to supervisors to clearly define the line where a joke becomes harassment. Although the intentions behind and off-collar joke, especially those involving race or sex, may not be malicious, it can cause emotional harm to a person. When the jokes, comments and pranks are pervasive and repeated, it makes for a hostile work environment.
The first key to preventing any type of harassment is adequate training where officers are instructed on what is and is not offensive. That can be quite a challenge and nearly impossible to accomplish, but effective training also includes addressing and complaints when they arise and taking steps to prevent the inappropriate behavior from becoming a serious problem in the workplace.
Written by: Daun Lee
Santa Clara, CA- Programming conventions don’t normally get worldwide media attention that is until they result in a Twitter war, a slew of death threats, warnings from Anonymous, and the firing of two people.
Australian technology evangelist and software programmer for SendGrid, Adria Richards was at the PyCon conference in Santa Clara, California, last week when she overheard two guys behind her cracking a dirty joke. Instead of ignoring the joke or asking them to stop, Richards sent expressed her ire over Twitter sneakily snapping a picture of the men and posting it online.
Richards Tweeted, “Not cool. Jokes about ‘forking’ repo’s in a sexual way and ‘big’ dongles. Right behind me #pycon pic.twitter.com/Hv1bkeOsYP,”accompanying it with a photo of the two men who offended her.
Although dongle and forking are tech terms, the dirty joke ignited a Twitter war which had serious consequences for the men, and Richards.
Action on the internet is swift and within a matter of days, Richards had received death and rape threats along with an onslaught of vulgar comments. TechCrunch’s Kim Cutler explained to ABC News that the ensuing Tweets Richards received were some of the “foulest kind of hate the web harbors.”
And it wasn’t just Twitter users that were angered by Richards and her tattle-telling Tweet, hacktivists groups, including the notorious Anonymous, took action, sending SendGrid a clear message; fire Richards or they hack their website and user’s accounts.
So Richards got fired, and so did one of the unnamed men, who worked for mobile gaming company Playhaven, NBC News reported.
In response to the controversy, PyCon updated their website, informing convention goers of the proper way to handle sexual harassment: “”Report the harassment incident (preferably in writing) to a conference staff member – all reports are confidential, please do not disclose public information about the incident until the staff have had sufficient time in which to address the situation,” ABC reported.
Richards should have handled the situation differently, but she felt the need to speak out for girls who may want to become programmers. To other women working in the tech industry, Richards once again exposed the sexism, which many women believe is so prevalent in the tech industry.
In a piece written for Business Inside, Rachel Sklar, founder of Change the Ratio, a group that advocates for women in technology said, “Adria doesn’t represent all women in tech – that is a huge, sprawling, diverse range of people across what is now a massive and diffuse industry. But the hateful reaction to her has been breathtaking, and frightening and unequivocally gendered.”
Richards admitted on her own blog that she didn’t handle the situation correctly, admitting on her own blog she never contacted convention organizers because, “I didn’t want to be heckled or have my experience denied.”
In the workplace, sexual harassment and inappropriate jokes should be first handled by asking the offender to stop. Maybe Richards believed she was doing the right thing, but all she may have achieved is making other women afraid to speak out about serious sexual harassment, which goes largely underreported in the workplace anyway.
There are lessons to be learned from this story. First of all, if a person offends with sexually charged jokes confront them then tell someone who has to power to do something about it, and by all means don’t air out grievances on a public forum like Twitter.
Written by: Daun Lee
Los Angeles, CA- Two lesbian LAPD officers will be sharing a $1.25 million dollar settlement, which was approved by the city council to settle allegations that the women were sexually harassed by their supervisor.
The two women, one who is still currently employed by the LAPD and another who is retired, filed the suit against the Van Nuys division in 2011. According to the Los Angeles Times, the city council voted 11 to 1 to approve the $1.5 million settlement.
Both women were hired in the Van Nuys division in 2010 under the supervision of Sgt. Randy Hoffmaster, a 25-year veteran of the force. During the course of that year, the women allege Hoffmaster made repeated sexually inappropriate comments which included sexual advances, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The women repeatedly complained to officials within the LAPD about the harassment, but no action against Hoffmaster was taken. An investigation into Hoffmaster’s behavior didn’t begin until the women filed their lawsuit, the Times said.
The result of the department’s inquiry has not been made public, but it did result in Hoffmaster’s resignation. Findings from the investigation were backed up by eyewitness accounts of several officers who were prepared to testify if the case went to trial.
“This woman does not have thin skin, and so it means something that she finally said, ‘Enough, is enough, is enough,’” Matthew McNicholas the lawyer representing the women told the Los Angeles Times.
Sexual harassment suits can cost a city millions each year and that money actually comes from the taxpayer. Public employers, just like private employers, have a duty to protect their employees from sexual harassment and other types of workplace discrimination.
Last year, when the Brooklyn city council member Vito Lopez was accused of sexual harassment, for the second time, a subsequent investigation by the New York Times discovered that the City of New York paid $5 million between 2009 and 2011 to settle 15 cases of sexual harassment.
That $5 million figure included $103,000 in a secret settlement paid to the first woman to accuse Lopez of sexual harassment. After that settlement, although the city took minimal action against which included sexual harassment training, Lopez went on to harass other women. It raises the question; if Lopez had been sanctioned more severely would he have stopped his misconduct?
Sexual harassment training is enough to prevent some sexual harassment in the workplace, but some people just can’t control certain impulses or just simply don’t recognize that their actions are inappropriate. This is when an employer must step in and appropriately address the harassing behavior and not dismiss the victim’s claims. Even if they are skeptical, it is better for an employer to be cautious than put themselves in the position to take on a great deal of liability. A city can save themselves a great deal of money by immediately dealing with any allegations of sexual harassment and by taking appropriate measures to stop harassment and discrimination.
Written by: Daun Lee
Los Angeles, CA- Yoga Guru Bikram Choudhury, best known for igniting the hot yoga craze, is accused of sexually harassing a former student and sabotaging her own yoga studio, according to court documents filed in a Los Angeles Superior Court.
The student Sarah Baughn, 27, said in the court documents which were obtained by the New York Post, the Choudhury, 67, relentlessly pursued her for a sexual relationship for several years. According to her claims, Choudhury first propositioned her at Los Angeles teaching seminar in 2005.
At the seminar, Choudhury apparently approached Baughn and said, “I know you from a past life. We have a connection. It is amazing. Should we make this a relationship?”
This disturbed Baughn, and she told her boyfriend, but she continued to take his classes–which entails 26 yoga poses done in a room at an average of 105 degrees.
In her lawsuit, Baughn noted that Choudhury, who is married, had a habit of checking out all of his female students, enlisting his most devoted acolytes “to brush his hair and massage his body,” according to the Post.
Even though she rebuffed Choudhury’s advances, one day, the suit alleges, he pushed her “down to the floor after pulling her arm and leg apart and opening her body.”
Choudhury then “pressed his body into hers and began whispering sexual things [until] she collapsed into sobs.”
It was during this incident that he told Baughn, “My wife is such a bitch, you have no idea. She is terrible to me. She is so mean. You have to save me,” the Post said.
Baughn alleges that after she repeatedly refused his advances, Choudhury “rigged” a yoga competition in 2008 so that she came in second place though she was a shoe-in for first. The first place prize went to the woman Choudhury was sharing a hotel room with.
After complaining to fellow members of the studio Baughn was told that Choudhury was “not a good man,” but “he’s a good teacher.”
He also allegedly prevented her from teaching, “because of her past and continuing refusal to have sex with her guru,” the lawsuit states.
According to the Post this isn’t the first time Choudhury has been accused of sexually harassing a student. Last year another woman accused the yoga master of routinely saying sexually explicit and inappropriate comments at a teacher training seminar.
Choudhury began his yoga career in the 70s after suffering a weight-lifting injury that almost took his ability to walk.
He patented his own style of hatha yoga which includes carrying out poses in a hot room because it allows stimulation to every organ and gland.
Choudhury’s hot yoga technique has made him millions and he often boasts about having the largest pool in Beverly Hills along with a large fleet of Rolls-Royces. He also has a celebrity clientele which includes George Clooney, Madonna and David Beckham.
Power can sometimes go to a person’s head, allowing them to justifying inappropriate behavior. If Baughn’s allegations are true, Choudhury may have to pay her a sizable settlement.
Written by: Daun Lee
New York, NY- The small New York Law firm Faruqi & Faruqi, who took on Wall Street in a number of lawsuits , is now facing a legal battle of their own after a former employee accused a junior attorney of sexual harassment and assault.
Faruqi & Faruqi made plenty of enemies on Wall Street by challenging executive pay, mergers and acquisitions. The firm pioneered the “say on pay” lawsuit headed by the efforts of attorney and partner Juan E. Monteverde, who is named as the defendant in the harassment lawsuit, the Business Insider reported.
The lawsuit was filed by a young female lawyer with the firm, Alexandra Marchuk, and detailed a number of salacious allegations against Monteverde accusing him of a pattern of harassment, which included inappropriate sexual comments and advances that culminated in an assault at a holiday party in 2011.
Above the Law, a popular legal blog first broke the story and detailed Ms. Marchuk’s allegations in which she said the harassment by Monteverde began almost immediately after she began working for the firm in September of 2011.
According to the lawsuit, Marchuk just days after she began working for the firm accompanied Monteverde to Delaware for a case, which led to an uncomfortable and troubling incident when the two attorneys went for drinks one night after court.
“After several more drinks at Lex Bar, Mr. Monteverde aggressively grabbed and kissed Ms. Marchuk and attempted to fondle her breasts. Ms. Marchuk physically rebuffed Mr. Monteverde’s advances. Mr. Monteverde then asked Ms. Marchuk to go back to F&F’s offices with him to have sex. Ms. Marchuk rejected the offer and went home. She had no romantic interest in Mr. Monteverde and was greatly troubled that her sole supervising attorney was making wildly inappropriate sexual advances to her on only her third day of full time employment at F&F,” the lawsuit said according to Above the Law.
Despite the rejection Monteverde continued to harass Marchuk asking her to be his mistress. He also asked her to wear seductive and “alluring” clothing to another hearing in Delaware, because the judge “her good looks would influence the judge” in the firm’s favor.
The 24 page lawsuit lists a number of other incidents of sexual harassment, but the final straw for Marchuk came in December of 2011. According to her allegations, while the holiday party raged on, Monteverde asked Marchuk to come to his office and discuss a bonus which he did not plan on giving her. Once in Monteverde’s office, the young attorney said he assaulted her.
“After entering his office, Mr. Monteverde pushed Ms. Marchuk to the floor and quickly, forcefully, and painfully had sex with her. Suffering discomfort and not wanting to continue having sex with him, Ms. Marchuk implored Mr. Monteverde to stop, but he disregarded her pleas and continued having sex with her,” the lawsuit said.
Faruqi & Faruqi vehemently denies the allegations brought for by Maruchuk. Partner Lubna M. Faruqi told Above the Law, “These claims are completely without merit, brought by a disgruntled former employee. We look forward to aggressively defending our reputation in court and have every confidence we will be vindicated.”
Whether or not Ms. Marchuk’s allegations are true or not, sexual harassment cases in which a person with a powerful position takes advantage of a subordinate are by no means rare.
Written by: Daun Lee
Los Angeles, CA- A Los Angeles court has overturned the $7.7 million discrimination settlement, ordering a new trial for Brandy Cochran who alleges she was fired from her modeling job on “Price is Right” because she got pregnant.
Cochran was awarded the multi-million dollar settlement last fall after a jury found that producers FreemantleMedia North America and The Price is Right Productions discriminated against and terminated her because she got pregnant, ABC News reported.
However, the two production companies appealed the decision and had the settlement overturned because of a recent California Supreme Court decision which changed how juries are instructed in discrimination cases.
According to ABC News, in the law change requires a judge to instruct a jury that the discrimination is a “substantial motivating factor/reason” for termination instead of a “motivating factor.”
In Cochran’s case, Judge Kevin Brazile failed to instruct the jury to follow the “substantial” guidance. In Tuesday’s ruling Brazile said “The instruction error cannot be considered harmless,” and ordered a new trial.
“Of central importance to the case was the weight given to discriminatory intent and whether that intent need only be of a mere motivating factor or a substantial factor. Given this central dispute, the failure to give the proper instruction regarding substantial factor cannot be considered harmless, and a new trial must be granted,” Brazile said.
In 2007, Cochran, who worked as a model on “The Price is Right” for eight years became pregnant twins. She did not initially tell her cast mates about the pregnancy because she was concerned about the possible implications for her job.
When Cochran could no longer hide the pregnancy, her coworkers would ridicule her, calling her wide load and saying she would break the set, according to ABC News.
The Hollywood Reporter said that producers on the show began to treat her differently after she revealed she was pregnant and gave her less and less work. She said at times producers seemed angry she was having twins and asked her if she planned on working when she got big. Cochran said this treatment led to depression and health problems for her and her child.
Producers challenged Cochran’s suit by saying she could not provide substantial evidence that she was fired because of her pregnancy, and asserted that were not aware she had problems with pregnancy depression and therefore could not have discriminated against her for a condition they were unaware of, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
After Cochran had her twins, and her maternity leave was over, Cochran called producers for her job back, but they often ignored her calls. She was never allowed to return to the show and believed she was wrongfully terminated because of her pregnancy.
“They ignored me, for probably about four months, trying to get a direct response about working,” she told KABC.
The attorney representing Cochran, Carney Shegerian said Judge Brazile’s verdict was appropriate, according to the Associated Press.
Shegerian believes a re-trail will allow him to triple or quadruple the settlement.
Thousands of people are subjected to sexual harassment and various forms of discrimination on an annual basis, which can take an emotional and financial toll. In 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received over 4,000 complaints of pregnancy discrimination.
Written by: Daun Lee
According to the Jackson Clarion Register, attorneys along with Magistrate Michael T. Parker negotiated behind closed doors for several hours on Monday before they reached an agreement.
In February of last year Kenya Burks who worked as Winfield’s chief of staff filed a lawsuit accusing the Mayor of sexually harassing her after they ended a consensual intimate relationship, and subjected her to a hostile work environment, the Clarion Register reported.
Winfield denied he and Burks had a relationship.
Burks named him and the city of Vicksburg in the suit initially asking for $1.5 million in damages, but attorneys would not say what the final settlement was.
Winfield is facing another legal battle where he has been accused of taking bribes for city contracts.
So why do municipalities and businesses frequently settle sexual harassment cases out of court?
Thousands of sexual harassment complaints are filed each year and a large majority of those complaints result in lawsuits. But municipalities and businesses would prefer to settle these cases out of court.
When Human Resources of any company receive a complaint of sexual harassment they have a responsibility to investigate any allegations regardless of how trivial they may seem. If the incident is a onetime thing such as an off-collar joke, a simple reprimand can suffice and end the problem there.
But too often sexual harassment isn’t just a onetime event; the behavior can be more pervasive and the sexual comments and innuendos can last for days, months even years. It can be particularly toxic to the work environment when a superior offers promotions and other benefits in exchange for sex.
Any allegation has to be investigated and Human Resources will investigate. If the allegations ring true then the offending employee can be fired, but this may not keep the victim to
When faced with a sexual harassment suit, some businesses choice to settle even if the allegations are not solid, or they discover the offender may actually be innocent of harassment. It leaves many to wonder why they would settle.
A sexual harassment lawsuit can be costly. Many companies would prefer to settle simply because it will save them tens of thousands to hundreds of thousand dollars in legal fees and if a court sides on the victim’s behalf they will have to pay out even more. Though a sexual harassment settlement can cost the company thousands to millions, it’s preferable over being engaged in a lengthy court battle, which is costly regardless of whether the court sides with the plaintiff.
There is another cost to sexual harassment and that is to the businesses reputation. A publicized sexual harassment case can give the company a bad name and settling the case whether they believe the accuser or not will help them preserve their good reputation.
Written by: Daun Lee
San Francisco, CA- Venture Capital firm, CMEA was sued earlier this month by three female employees alleging the faced sexual harassment and retaliation at the company, making the third high-profile case of harassment in the finance and tech industry in the past year, leading some to wonder if there is a significant gender gap in the world of finance and technology.
The three women, Dawn-Shemain Weeks, Margaret Hines and Shannon Schlagenhauf filed a federal lawsuit against the firm On Feb. 7th, alleging the company’s president and Chief Financial Officer John Haag “behaved in sexually and racially inappropriate ways,” the court papers said.
The legal complaint, which is 17-pages long according to Forbes, included many incidents of sexually explicit behaviors and comments targeted at the three women. The suit also alleges that partners in the firm observed this behavior and did nothing to discourage or stop it.
The numerous allegations against Haag include commenting on Schlagenhauf’s body and once saying he would suck “her daddies *****.” Schlagenhauf also alleges that in one instance Haag block her from leaving his office and sat in a manner that exposed his crotch area, according to Forbes.
The complaint also alleges Haag would call Weeks “muffy,” refer to Hines as “boom boom” or “dirty bird.” He would also call Schlagenhauf, “Shaniqua” referring to her as African-American though that is ot her actual race.
The suit also says that executives say Haag engage in harassing behavior, but took no steps to stop it and instead would just walk away.
The women also said after the brought Haag’s misconduct to CMEA management, not steps were taken to stop the behavior and they faced retaliation. They allege that they were denied overtime, which represents 20 to 30 percent of their income, after they reported the harassment.
Christopher Lebsock, the attorney representing the three women said, “It was not simply a statement taken in isolation,” according to Forbes. “If you look at the overall context of the way this company was operating, there was a total disregard for what the law required. It manifested itself in a lot of ways. You had statements that were obviously sexual in nature and inappropriate. You have bullying and intimidation-type behavior,” Lebsock said.
Lebsok also said that Haag knew he was saying inappropriate things because he would turn to other women and ask them if his behavior was wrong. To Lesok this means Haag was aware that his comments were inappropriate.
Haag no longer works for CMEA but they released a statement which said the former CFO was not guilty of the behavior and felt confident a court will decide he is not guilty of the charges.
This is just the second lawsuit and third instance of sexual harassment in the world of finance. Last year, Ellen Pao, who was a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers filed a federal sexual harassment lawsuit alleging that she was harassed and retaliated against.
Earlier this month, the CFO of Square, Matthew Rabois, left his position after a former male employee and lover threatened to sue the company for sexual harassment. Rabois denied the allegations.