A New York court officer had a single sexual encounter with a colleague and then tried to end the relationship. He had other ideas, to the point where his behavior deeply disturbed her. But she was extremely reluctant to complain about what he was doing to her.

What happened. “Dixon,” an employee of the New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA), was assigned to Midtown Community Court in 1999. “Kohl” was hired into the same position in 2001, and the two had their intimate encounter several months later. But Dixon told Kohl the next day that she felt it had been a mistake and did not want to continue the liaison. Much, much later, courts were told that he then began treating her with unwanted touching, graphic language, and physical gestures of a sexual nature.

Dixon was extremely upset by this conduct and soon begged off work on a Saturday, when she knew she would be alone with him. But she didn’t say why. Her boss asked Kohl why, who answered that he (Kohl) “might have said or done something he shouldn’t have.” The boss asked no further questions, but he did later ask Dixon. She became too upset to talk about it—and she later testified that he said he was glad, because he didn’t want to hear. Dixon soon spoke, several times, with her equal employment opportunity liaison about Kohl’s conduct but swore her to secrecy. Not until she quit did she sue, and the target of her lawsuit was not Kohl but their boss, who she said “knew or should have known” about the problem.

A judge in federal district court dismissed her charges because she had not followed complaint procedures that were open to her. Dixon appealed to the 2nd Circuit, which covers Connecticut, New York, and Vermont.

What the court said. Appellate judges agreed with the district court that the employer was not liable because the EEO liaison in whom Dixon confided took her complaint no further. On Dixon’s boss’s lack of action, however, they disagreed. They wrote, “We hold that a reasonable jury could conclude that [Dixon’s] employer had at least constructive knowledge of the sexual harassment directed at her.” Furthermore, “a supervisor’s purposeful ignorance of the nature of the problem … will not shield an employer from liability under Title VII.” So they sent the case back to the lower court, probably to be tried by a jury. Duch v. Jakubek and the State of New York, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, No. 07-3503-cv (12/4/09).

Point to remember: An employer must act, in any way possible, if an employee reports harassment, even when he or she wants it kept quiet. We don’t think the EEO liaison in this case should have gotten off so easy.