In an employment sex discrimination case, district court rulings against plaintiffs are affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiffs’ amended complaint was untimely under the equitable tolling doctrine as plaintiffs did not act with due diligence, or under the relation back doctrine as plaintiffs’ failure to name the company’s subsidiary was not the result of a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party; 2) district court’s grant of summary judgment against timely plaintiffs on their sex discrimination, quid pro quo sexual harassment, retaliation, and a hostile workplace claim was proper. A ruling finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants-parent and subsidiary acted as an integrated enterprise is reversed and remanded given their interrelated operations. Dismissal of two plaintiffs’ hostile workplace claims is remanded to determine whether evidence of widespread sexual harassment was sufficient to put the subsidiary on notice.
Read Sandoval v. Am. Building Maint. Indus., Inc., No. 08-2271
Appellate Information
Submitted: February 11, 2009
Filed: August 26, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Bye, Circuit Judge
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
