Because of bad luck, I know way too much about employment law. Ongoing harassment is required for the legal definition [1]. The company only has to demonstrate reasonable effort in addressing the problem to avoid a lawsuit. So termination after a MILF comment is overkill in the legal sense. The cases that make it to court are god awful. [2]
The variables are how badly does the employer want to avoid negative press and an EEOC investigation. On the other hand, lawyers wouldn't take a case on contingency unless the litigant had a chance. In fact, it's a litmus test. Don't sue for discrimination if no lawyer will take the case on contingency. For example, Ellen Pao had to pay for her own lawyers. I chatted with my employment lawyer friends and they said her case was weak.
My experience has been the opposite. I've probably been much luckier than you (I've never been a party in a suit), but I've watched companies settle up over weak-seeming claims.
It's not just ongoing harassment, but also claims of retaliation when someone who has complained about sexual harassment is later terminated for (ostensibly) other reasons.
Retaliation is a different beast. It's human nature. A poorly trained manager's first instinct is to retaliate. If they don't retaliate illegally then they will do it in some other way.
After investigating, the EEOC shares their evaluation. So both parties should know how strong or weak the claims are. The requirements for a case are stringent, as you can see from the previous link. This is because EEOC understands the damage done by frivolous cases.
reply