CompFox AI Summary
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her employer, Les Brownlee, as Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of the Army, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff claimed a hostile work environment due to a coworker's aggressive behavior and further alleged retaliatory actions, including a forced transfer, exclusion from meetings, denied training, and failure to promote after filing EEO complaints. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for sexual harassment because the conduct was not based on her sex, nor was it sufficiently severe or pervasive, and the employer took prompt and reasonable remedial action. Additionally, the court ruled that the plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action for her retaliation claims and that her failure-to-promote claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Consequently, the case was dismissed with prejudice.
Peake v. Brownlee is a workers' compensation case decided in District Court, M.D. Tennessee. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in District Court, M.D. Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her employer, Les Brownlee, as Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of the Army, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff claimed a hostile work environment due to a coworker's aggressive behavior and further alleged retaliatory actions, including a forced transfer, exclusion from meetings, denied training, and failure to promote after filing EEO complaints. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for sexual harassment because the conduct was not based on her sex, nor was it sufficiently severe or pervasive, and the employer took prompt and reasonable remedial action. Additionally, the court ruled that the plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action for her retaliation claims and that her failure-to-promote claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Consequently, the case was dismissed with prejudice.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.