Updated October 14, 2025
Real Cases of Workplace Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment claims cost American companies over $1 billion annually, yet many HR professionals remain underprepared to identify and address examples of workplace sexual harassment effectively.
Unfortunately, the consequences of mishandling these situations extend far beyond financial penalties. Reputational damage, employee turnover, and devastating impacts on victims' wellbeing can haunt organizations for years after an incident occurs.
By examining real-world cases, HR departments can better understand their legal obligations and develop more effective prevention strategies. These seven landmark sexual harassment cases demonstrate the various forms harassment can take, from hostile work environments to quid pro quo situations, while highlighting critical lessons for human resources professionals.
From the groundbreaking Julie Fisher case that expanded understanding of third-party harassment to the Oncale decision that confirmed same-sex harassment protections, each example offers valuable insights into proper handling of complaints, investigation procedures, and preventative measures that every HR professional should know in 2025.
Julie Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital
Julie Fisher case background
In 1987, Julie Fisher, a surgical nurse at San Pedro Peninsula Hospital in California, filed a groundbreaking sexual discrimination lawsuit that eventually reshaped legal understanding of environmental sexual harassment. Fisher began working at the hospital in August 1981, alongside her husband Cordell Fisher, a pediatric dental surgeon with staff privileges at the same facility . The case centered on Dr. Barry Tischler, a gynecologist who held significant influence over Fisher's employment by providing direct orders and performance recommendations .
Julie Fisher nature of harassment
Fisher's complaint detailed two distinct periods of harassment. From 1981 to November 1982, she experienced direct sexual harassment from Dr. Tischler, including verbal insults and offensive touching. During one incident, Dr. Tischler hugged her so tightly that he separated the cartilage in her ribs . After Fisher complained to hospital management, Tischler wrote an apology letter but faced no disciplinary action .
Subsequently, although Tischler avoided direct contact with Fisher, she alleged he continued harassing other female employees in her presence. These behaviors reportedly included pulling nurses onto his lap, hugging and kissing them, making sexual comments, touching women inappropriately, and making lewd remarks about anesthetized female patients . Fisher claimed these actions occurred in hallways, the operating room, and the lunchroom between 1982 and 1986 .
Julie Fisher legal outcome
Initially, a Long Beach Superior Court judge dismissed Fisher's claims, ruling that a bystander had no legal justification to sue based on treatment of colleagues . The judge concluded that Fisher's "vicarious disgust" at the doctor's activities toward others was not actionable, noting "the world is full of offensive jackasses, but there is no tort for being offensive" .
Nevertheless, Fisher appealed, and in 1990, the California Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, establishing that employees could sue for environmental sexual harassment even if not directly targeted . The court determined that to prevail, Fisher must prove she personally witnessed the harassment in her immediate surroundings and demonstrate it created an abusive working environment .
Despite this legal victory establishing the environmental harassment precedent, when the case went to trial in 1992, the jury ultimately ruled 9-3 in Dr. Tischler's favor after just seven hours of deliberation .
Julie Fisher lessons for HR
The Julie Fisher case fundamentally changed how HR departments must view sexual harassment. It established that creating or allowing a hostile work environment affects all employees exposed to it, not just direct targets. Furthermore, this case demonstrates the critical importance of thorough investigations and appropriate disciplinary action when complaints arise. The allegations that hospital officials took no action against Dr. Tischler despite multiple complaints highlights how institutional inaction can exacerbate harassment situations .
EEOC v. Z Foods
EEOC v. Z Foods case background
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Z Foods, Inc. and its predecessor Zoria Farms in September 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California . At the time, Z Foods was one of the largest dried fruit processors in the United States, operating a facility in Madera, California . The case originated from multiple complaints filed by farmworkers who alleged widespread sexual harassment and subsequent retaliation after reporting the misconduct.
EEOC v. Z Foods nature of harassment
According to court documents, two male supervisors subjected numerous female farmworkers to persistent sexual harassment . The misconduct included:
- Conditioning promotions and continued employment on sexual favors
- Making continuous sexual advances and unwanted comments
- Stalking female employees
- Unwanted physical touching and leering
Specifically, supervisor Martin Ramirez reportedly subjected Rosa Mendez to harassment including "hugging her from behind, grabbing her buttocks, and making comments about her physical appearance" . Another supervisor, Francisco Guerra, placed harassing phone calls to employees, made explicit comments about workers' bodies, and invaded their personal space . Male colleagues who witnessed these behaviors and stood in solidarity with female workers also faced consequences .
EEOC v. Z Foods legal outcome
In 2015, Zoria Farms settled their portion of the case for $330,000 plus a five-year consent decree containing injunctive remedies . Subsequently, in 2016, a federal judge ordered Z Foods to pay $1.47 million in damages – the maximum allowed by statute . The court specifically ruled that the claimants had "suffered severe emotional distress as a result of actions of Z Foods" .
EEOC v. Z Foods lessons for HR
This landmark case underscores several critical lessons for human resources professionals. First, it highlights the importance of taking immediate corrective action when harassment complaints arise rather than ignoring or dismissing them . Second, it demonstrates how retaliatory actions against complainants can significantly compound legal liability .
Additionally, the case emphasizes the value of workplace solidarity – male employees who supported their female colleagues by reporting misconduct played a crucial role in establishing the pattern of harassment . As noted by EEOC Regional Attorney Anna Park, this "solidarity that male employees displayed… in supporting and speaking up along with their female co-workers about the severe harassment is a critical component of remedying the pervasive problem of sexual harassment" .
Golding v. Sippel and The Laundry Chute
Golding v. Sippel case background
Queensland's landmark sexual harassment case emerged from a laundromat workplace where power dynamics created perfect conditions for abuse. Perlita Golding, originally from the Philippines, was employed at The Laundry Chute from June 2017 to August 2018, working under owner Ian Sippel . As a mother of four with significant financial responsibilities and a history of domestic violence, Golding's vulnerable position made her particularly susceptible to workplace exploitation .
Golding v. Sippel nature of harassment
Throughout her 14-month employment, Golding endured escalating harassment that exemplifies several common workplace sexual harassment patterns:
- Inappropriate touching, including grabbing her bottom and groin through her clothes
- Forcing Golding to touch Sippel's genitals
- Offering to lend his lawnmower in exchange for sexual intercourse
- Offering $500 in exchange for sexual intercourse when she offered to massage his sore back for $50
- Manipulating work hours – increasing them while propositioning her and decreasing them when she rejected his advances
Justice Davis later described this behavior as "tormenting," noting that Golding endured this treatment primarily because her financial situation left her with little choice .
Golding v. Sippel legal outcome
Initially, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) awarded Golding $30,000 in general damages and $5,000 in aggravated damages . However, upon appeal, Justice Davis of the Industrial Court of Queensland dramatically increased the award, declaring the original amount "manifestly inadequate" . The final judgment awarded $130,000 in combined general and aggravated damages plus $28,702 for economic loss, totaling approximately $160,000 – a record-breaking amount for Queensland .
Golding v. Sippel lessons for HR
This case offers critical insights for human resources professionals. First, it demonstrates how financial vulnerability creates conditions ripe for exploitation. Second, it highlights how courts increasingly recognize the severe impact of sexual harassment on victims' psychological wellbeing. Indeed, Golding developed an anxiety disorder that rendered her unable to work . Moreover, the case signals courts' evolving standards regarding appropriate compensation, with Justice Davis explicitly noting that damages must reflect "prevailing community standards" . Lastly, it emphasizes that employers who knowingly exploit vulnerable employees face substantial financial consequences beyond mere statutory damages.
Green v. State of Queensland
Green v. State of QLD case background
In this unusual sexual harassment case, a male cleaner at a Queensland State School became the victim of a workplace prank with explicit sexual overtones. In September 2014, two colleagues—the school groundsman and the cleaner's supervisor—deliberately staged a staff room to appear as though a "sex romp" had occurred between two staff members rumored to be having an affair . The scene included empty alcohol bottles, clothing items, and a condom containing fluid, which the cleaner believed contained actual bodily fluids .
Green v. State of QLD nature of harassment
The harassment centered around this elaborate prank where the cleaner was required to clean up what he believed were the aftermath of sexual activities. Notably, one colleague invited him to smell boxer shorts left in the room . The cleaner became extremely distressed upon discovering the scene. When he indicated he would confront one of the teachers supposedly involved, his colleagues finally revealed it was a prank . Following his complaint, the groundsman further victimized him by appearing to video the cleaner when dropping his children off at school and intimidating his children in one incident outside the school .
Green v. State of QLD legal outcome
In 2017, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) awarded the cleaner a total of $156,051 in compensation . This substantial award included $70,000 for non-financial loss (pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress), plus additional amounts for lost income, superannuation, and future treatment costs . The tribunal found both the groundsman personally and the Department of Education and Training liable for the full amount, with the supervisor ordered to pay 50% .
Green v. State of QLD lessons for HR
This case underscores how sexual harassment can take unexpected forms beyond traditional understanding. Consequently, HR professionals must recognize that "pranks" with sexual content can constitute harassment regardless of intent. The case also highlights the severe psychological impact such incidents can have—within a month of the incident, the victim developed acute anxiety, PTSD symptoms, and was unable to work for over two years . Furthermore, the substantial damages awarded reflect courts' increasing recognition of the serious harm caused by workplace sexual harassment.
STU v. JKL (Qld) Pty Ltd
STU v. JKL case background
A troubling case of workplace sexual harassment emerged in Queensland when a young woman began employment with JKL (Qld) Pty Ltd. As part of her new position, the company arranged shared accommodation with an older male employee . First appearing before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), this case examines harassment occurring outside traditional workplace settings yet still within the course of employment.
STU v. JKL nature of harassment
The incident occurred on the complainant's first night in the employer-provided accommodation. She awoke to find her male colleague naked in her bedroom . The man proceeded to touch her upper thigh and groin without consent, then attempted to remove her underwear . After demanding he leave, the young woman broke down crying . As a consequence of this trauma, she developed post-traumatic stress disorder with depressive symptoms, rendering her unable to work for approximately two and a half years .
STU v. JKL legal outcome
In December 2016, QCAT awarded the complainant $328,316.10 in total compensation . This substantial sum included $70,000 for general damages (personal injury), $25,000 for future economic loss, plus various interest payments and medical costs . Notably, the tribunal determined the employer was vicariously liable since the harassment occurred in accommodations they had arranged, establishing this qualified as "in the course of employment" .
STU v. JKL lessons for HR
Given that the tribunal explicitly criticized JKL's lack of preventative measures, this case presents crucial lessons for HR professionals. Member Fitzpatrick stated, "At the very least one would expect a publicly listed company to have an anti-discrimination policy and an education program for its workers" . In short, employers must recognize their responsibilities extend beyond traditional workplace settings into company-provided accommodations . This case confirms proper training and policy implementation remain essential for preventing liability in harassment claims .
Lashley v. Flynn
Lashley v. Flynn case background
The unusual gender dynamics of this 2013 case highlight how sexual harassment can occur regardless of traditional power structures. Corey Lashley met Sheila Flynn, president of New Life Business Institute (a healthcare training facility), at a Queens nightclub. Their encounter led to both a romantic relationship and Lashley's employment as an admissions recruiter . Unlike typical harassment scenarios, this case began with a consensual relationship that later deteriorated.
Lashley v. Flynn nature of harassment
After Lashley attempted to end their relationship, Flynn pursued him persistently. Lashley testified that Flynn would grab him and rub against his body in her office, ultimately performing unwanted sexual acts . Whenever Lashley avoided Flynn's advances, she retaliated professionally. In one instance, she forced him to take an unpaid two-week vacation so she could "get over" him . She explicitly threatened him via text message, writing "you should just quit, it is not going to be nice" after he refused further sexual contact .
Lashley v. Flynn legal outcome
Following a four-day trial, a jury awarded Lashley $40,000 – comprising $10,000 in compensatory damages and $30,000 in punitive damages . The court upheld Lashley's quid pro quo sexual harassment claim, finding a clear causal connection between his termination and rejection of Flynn's advances . Henceforth, the court set aside only his retaliation claim, ruling that rejecting sexual advances doesn't qualify as "protected activity" under Title VII .
Lashley v. Flynn lessons for HR
This precedent-setting case underscores that sexual harassment policies must apply equally regardless of gender. Thereupon, HR professionals should recognize that quid pro quo harassment commonly emerges following workplace relationships, especially between supervisors and subordinates . Furthermore, organizations need clear protocols for handling romantic relationships that turn problematic. Undeniably, this case illustrates why companies must proactively establish sexual harassment policies – a point explicitly noted by the court .
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services
Oncale v. Sundowner case background
A landmark Supreme Court case emerged in late October 1991, when Joseph Oncale began working as a roustabout on an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico for Sundowner Offshore Services. Oncale was part of an eight-man crew that included John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and Brandon Johnson . His employment experience quickly deteriorated into a nightmare of workplace abuse that would ultimately transform American employment law.
Oncale v. Sundowner nature of harassment
Oncale faced severe harassment from his male colleagues, including:
- Forcible subjection to sex-related, humiliating actions in front of other crew members
- Physical sexual assault by Pippen and Lyons
- Explicit threats of rape from Lyons
After reporting these incidents, Oncale received no support from supervisory personnel. Remarkably, the company's Safety Compliance Clerk merely told him that Lyons and Pippen "picked on him all the time too" . Ultimately, Oncale quit his position, requesting his termination paperwork reflect he "voluntarily left due to sexual harassment and verbal abuse" .
Oncale v. Sundowner legal outcome
Initially, both the District Court and Fifth Circuit Court rejected Oncale's claim, ruling that as a male, he had "no cause of action under Title VII for harassment by male co-workers" . Nevertheless, in 1998, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned these decisions. Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, established that Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination applies to harassment between members of the same sex . The Court rejected arguments that recognizing same-sex harassment would transform Title VII into a "general civility code" for workplaces .
Oncale v. Sundowner lessons for HR
This pivotal case established that sexual harassment claims aren't limited by traditional gender dynamics. Hence, HR departments must recognize that harassment protections extend to all employees regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The Court clarified that the critical issue is whether the conduct is severe enough to create an objectively hostile work environment . Therefore, HR policies must focus on behavior impact rather than harasser identity, while ensuring objective evaluation of claims based on context and circumstances .
Conclusion
These landmark cases undoubtedly reshape our understanding of workplace sexual harassment while offering crucial lessons for HR professionals in 2025 and beyond. Each case demonstrates how sexual harassment manifests in various forms – from hostile work environments to quid pro quo situations, affecting employees regardless of gender, position, or circumstance.
The financial consequences alone should alarm any organization, with damages ranging from $40,000 to over $1.4 million in the cases examined. Additionally, courts increasingly recognize the severe psychological impact of harassment, awarding substantial compensation for emotional distress, lost wages, and future treatment costs.
Several critical patterns emerge throughout these cases. First, harassment extends beyond traditional workplace settings into company-provided accommodations and other work-related environments. Second, same-sex harassment receives equal protection under the law, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Oncale. Third, bystanders witnessing persistent harassment toward others may have valid claims for environmental harassment.
Organizations must develop comprehensive prevention strategies rather than simply reacting to complaints. Proper training programs, clear reporting procedures, and swift corrective actions serve as essential protective measures for both employees and companies. The Z Foods case specifically highlights how retaliation against complainants compounds legal liability and damages.
HR departments play a pivotal role as frontline defenders against workplace harassment. Their responsibilities include creating safe reporting channels, conducting thorough investigations, implementing appropriate disciplinary measures, and fostering workplace cultures where harassment becomes unthinkable rather than inevitable.
Though addressing sexual harassment presents challenges, the alternative – ignoring or mishandling such situations – proves far more costly in terms of financial penalties, employee wellbeing, productivity, and organizational reputation. These seven cases offer valuable blueprints for building harassment-free workplaces that benefit everyone involved, ultimately transforming legal obligations into organizational strengths.
References
[1] – https://mcna.com.au/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace/
[2] – https://www.qhrc.qld.gov.au/resources/case-studies/sexual-harassment-case-studies
[3] – https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-09/qld-record-damages-awarded-laundromat-sexual-harassment-case/100362242
[4] – https://onlabor.org/looking-back-at-justice-scalias-decision-in-oncale-because-of-sex/
[5] – https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/u-s-equal-emp-886463655
[6] – https://dailyjournal.com/verdicts_and_settlement/89005-u-s-equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-z-foods-dba-zoria-farms-zoria-farms-inc
[7] – https://www.atkersonlaw.com/blog/2016/08/08/judge-awards-shocking-amount-to-183173/
[8] – https://www.holdingredlich.com/court-raises-the-bar-on-compensation-for-sexual-harassment-and-discrimination-in-queensland
[9] – https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/blog/employment-issues/workplace-sexual-harassment-compensation-on-the-rise/
[10] – https://www.flichygrange.com/health-and-safety/articles/australian-court-raises-bar-compensation-award-sexual-harassment-discrimination-13647.htm
[11] – https://www.qhrc.qld.gov.au/resources/legal-information/tribunals/remedies-qcat-qirc
[12] – https://www.hopgoodganim.com.au/news-insights/award-of-70000-for-non-financial-loss-in-queensland-sexual-harassment-case/
[13] – https://cgw.com.au/publications/metoo-a-sexual-harassment-case-update/
[14] – https://sexualharassmentaustralia.com.au/sexual-harassment-cases-examples/
[15] – https://sexualharassmentaustralia.com.au/what-is-my-sexual-harassment-case-worth/
[16] – https://www.areea.com.au/help/mining-reform/mining-publications/employer-found-vicariously-liable-assault-female-employee/
[17] – https://www.keypointlaw.com.au/keynotes/do-employers-owe-a-positive-duty-to-prevent-sexual-harassment-at-work/
[18] – https://www.mondaq.com/australia/discrimination-disability–sexual-harassment/899348/all-reasonable-steps-to-eliminate-sexual-harassment-from-the-workplace-a-reminder-to-employers
[19] – https://brobertsonlaw.com/10-crazy-sexual-harassment-cases/
[20] – https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/1:2013cv02683/342444/63/
[21] – https://pospislaw.com/blog/2015/03/12/court-upholds-jurys-verdict-that-male-plaintiff-endured-quid-pro-quo-sexual-harassment-by-female-boss/
[22] – https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20150310e28
[23] – https://www.ocalaemploymentlawyer.com/jury-verdict-for-employee-claiming-quid-pro-quo-sexual-harassment-after-break-up-with-supervisor-upheld/
[24] – https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/5386-gender-sexuality-and-the-law/resources/7.3-oncale-v-sundowner-offshore-services-inc/
[25] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncale_v._Sundowner_Offshore_Services,_Inc.
[26] – https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1416&context=wmborj
If you need workplace harassment litigation, please call Setyan Law at (213)-618-3655. Free consultation.
