• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Would you let your boss smurf your head and spaff on your chest for £95 million?

  • Bart/OBL/Abstain

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    19

Pubey

Guest
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/06/10/us-sexharassment-suit-idUKTRE7596IS20110610

A federal jury in Illinois has awarded $95 million to a woman who said she was the victim of a sexual harassment campaign that culminated when her boss allegedly threw her down on a couch and masturbated on her chest.

After nearly three days of deliberations, jurors in the Southern District of Illinois federal court concluded Wednesday that Ashley Alford, who worked in a branch of Aaron's Inc. -- a nationwide chain of rent-to-own furniture stores -- should receive $15 million in compensatory damages and $80 million in punitive damages.

David Ratner of Morelli Ratner, who represented Alford, said he believes the award is the largest ever in an individual sexual harassment case.

However, he said the judge will reduce the award on the federal claim because of statutory limits. All told, he said it's likely that at least $43 million will be collectible.

In a statement, Chad Strickland, vice president of associate resources for Aaron's, said the company vowed to appeal the verdict.

"Aaron's is extremely disappointed with the jury's verdict and believes that the award does not accurately reflect the evidence that was presented in this case," he said.

He added that the verdict was "the result of a decision made by a classic runaway jury" and was "confident that the damages will be greatly reduced."

"CAMPAIGN" OF HARASSMENT

Soon after Alford joined Aaron's as a sales representative in the fall of 2005, the male employees engaged in a "campaign" to harass the 20-year-old, Ratner said in an interview.

The store's general manager, Richard Moore, who was allegedly the main culprit, nicknamed Alford "Trixie," frequently told her how "cute" she looked, commented on the size of her breasts and groped her, Ratner said.

In September 2006, Alford was sitting on the floor of the stock room when Moore approached her from behind, "removed his penis from his pants and intentionally proceeded to hit Plaintiff on the top of her head with his penis," according to the complaint.

The following month, Moore pushed Alford down on a sofa in a back room, lifted her shirt and restrained her while he masturbated on her chest, the complaint says.


Alford sued Aaron's in 2008.

She claimed she called the company's sexual-harassment hotline, and left a message that went unreturned.

Ratner disputed Aaron's claim that this was a "runaway jury," saying it took nearly three days for the jury to come back with a verdict in Alford's favor.

"This wasn't a jury swayed by passion that came back in a hour," Ratner said.

Strickland said in a statement that Moore's alleged acts were inconsistent with "everything our Company believes in and stands for and outside the scope of Moore's employment."

Moore's attorney did not immediately return a call for comment.

The case is Alford v. Aaron's Rents, Inc., Southern District of Illinois, 3:08-cv-00683.

For Alford: David Ratner of Morelli Ratner

For Aaron's: Alisa Pittman Cleek of Ellarbee,Thomson, Sapp & Wilson
 

Pubey

Guest
ooops I meant to make this an 18+ thread, could a mod please add that! thanks
 

Davros

The Whippet
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
8,387
its wrong, but the amount of money is ridiculous.

Soldiers that return from war, missing limbs and/or having seen comrades blown to pieces recieve paltry amounts compared to this, and i should say that their lives will be truely more affected than hers.

Im not saying that what she has gone through isnt tremendoulsy upsetting, but i really cant see how such a large amounf of money is meant to help. Sure £500k, would get her some councelling, pay her rent while she feels unable to work etc, but £90mil is well beyond what her lifes work ould ever be worth!
 

stoy_redstar

Members
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
1,398
its wrong, but the amount of money is ridiculous.

Soldiers that return from war, missing limbs and/or having seen comrades blown to pieces recieve paltry amounts compared to this, and i should say that their lives will be truely more affected than hers.

Im not saying that what she has gone through isnt tremendoulsy upsetting, but i really cant see how such a large amounf of money is meant to help. Sure £500k, would get her some councelling, pay her rent while she feels unable to work etc, but £90mil is well beyond what her lifes work ould ever be worth!
So that's a yes then....
 

Davros

The Whippet
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
8,387
not really, as despite being an accountant etc, i'm not all that massively motivated by money (unless it comes to saving it/haggling a good deal), but in terms of making it by ripping people off, no.
 

Not In Mohave Shrimper

formerly Drastic™
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
8,822
Location
SS1
its wrong, but the amount of money is ridiculous.

Soldiers that return from war, missing limbs and/or having seen comrades blown to pieces recieve paltry amounts compared to this, and i should say that their lives will be truely more affected than hers.

Im not saying that what she has gone through isnt tremendoulsy upsetting, but i really cant see how such a large amounf of money is meant to help. Sure £500k, would get her some councelling, pay her rent while she feels unable to work etc, but £90mil is well beyond what her lifes work ould ever be worth!

As much as we all agree (and I include myself in that) that injured soldiers should get better compensation, it's not really relevant here, as that would come from the government. This is a civil case, one company/individual paying another company/individual.

$15million is the compensation awarded to the victim, for her traumatic experiences. No person should have to go through that kind of bullying at work.

The other $80m is Punitive, ie. a punishment to the company for their behaviour. In this case it wasn't just the individuals involved at the branch, the victims complaints were ignored by the company heirachy. Punitive damages aren't always paid to the victim although in this case they seem to have been.

Is the figure awarded high? Yes. Do i feel any sympathy for the company involved? None whatsoever.
 

Hazey

Director
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
3,095
Location
Northampton
I'd let Anne Widdicombe sit on my face for that much money! Obviously the story itself is outragous but even a million I'd say was quite a lot.
 

Hotman

reason, honour, integrity
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
5,611
Location
Not here
Lucky cow had the pleasure of giving a titty **** and 95million $ - not a bad days work.
 

Yorkshire Blue

Super Moderator⭐
Staff member
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
35,960
Location
London
Pubey, does your boss monitor your internet usage?

I'm just a little concerned that you starting a thread whilst at work publicly announcing that you want him to smurf your head and spaff on your chest might constitute sexual harassment. If you have feelings for him there are better ways to express it than on SZ.
 

milhouse

Newbie
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
33
I went on a crash course in US civil law (duration 1/2 day, so clearly I'm an expert) and was told that these crazy headline verdicts always get overturned on appeal. But the appeal is never newsworthy so we never get to hear of it.

So, it sounds as if the Illinois cash-hungry sweetie is unlikely to see her cash. Unless, of course, the appeal court increases her damages...or perhaps not.
 

londonblue

Topgun Pilot
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
16,173
Firstly, as has already been mentioned most of this is punitive damages.

Secondly, the article also says that the amounts will be reduced since the jury have gone over their limit.

Thirdly, this is America, so any comparison with how much we compensate our injured soldiers is not in any way relevant.
 
Top