Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Employer Liability for Customer Conduct: Former PNC Bank employee receives $2.4M jury verdict

Blog Post

Earlier this month, PNC Bank was on the wrong end of a sexual harassment jury verdict in a claim brought by a former employee. Why is this case interesting to you? Two reasons: The former employee was sexually harassed, but not by a PNC employee; and, the sexual harassment did not occur within a PNC workplace. 

A New Jersey jury awarded $2.4 million to Damara Scott, a former employee of PNC Bank, who alleged the employer failed to protect her from unwelcome touching by a customer.

Ms. Scott alleged she was leaving work in 2013 when a customer began following her to her car. The customer, Patrick Pignatello, allegedly said “I offer full services and I’m willing to please.” Then he pressed and ground his crotch into her buttocks. 

The lawsuit against PNC began in 2015. Pignatello had died by then. After over four years of litigation, the jury ruled against PNC. Key allegations were that Pignatello had previously harassed other female workers and customers within the PNC branch. While he was occasionally banned from the branch, his accounts were never closed as he was a profitable customer who referred other business to the bank. The jury found the employer had a duty to protect its workers from harassment beyond only the acts of its other employees. Ms. Scott was subjected to harassment based on her gender, and the employer was liable for the incident to the tune of $2.4 million. * 

An informed reader may dismiss this article because it occurred in New Jersey, which is often referred to as the California of the Atlantic coast for its liberal protections of employees. However, the principles from this case are found in federal laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as most state laws and regulations. This article is being written in Ohio, which has a specific provision that: 

An employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees (e.g., customers) with respect to sexual harassment of employees in the work place, where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. . . .
Ohio Administrative Code 4112-5-05(J)(5). 

The lesson: An employer’s obligation to its employees harassed by any non-employee (customer, vendor, business invitee, contractor, etc.) is the same as if the harasser was an employee. The Employer must investigate and implement prompt remedial measures to ensure that the harassment stops and does not reoccur. 

For additional information or to make sure your policies and trainings are complete and up to date, contact me at 216.658.2323 or jcmiller@bmdllc.com, or reach out to any of our Labor + Employment attorneys

*PNC has denied all allegations and is appealing the jury verdict.


You Know ADR, But What About EDR?

BMD Member Bob Hager and Partner Jessica Hew have co-authored an article in the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Journal, focusing on the strategic selection and implementation of dispute resolution methods. The article covers mediation and arbitration, offering insights into their application and effectiveness. It provides valuable tips for lawyers on how to choose the best method for resolving disputes and highlights the importance of creative approaches to serve clients effectively.

Ohio Legalizes Marijuana: Changes for Employers

Ohio Employers: Ohio recreational marijuana sales begin Tuesday, August 6, bringing new challenges for employers regarding employee use. BMD Partner and Labor & Employment Co-Chair Bryan Meek has outlined essential tips and best practices to help you adapt.

Entourage Effect and Shield Compliance Join the ICLC

In a continuation of its recent growth, only a bit more than a year after its organization, the ICLC is pleased to announce the addition of 3 more new participants. One of these is a commercial bank. In accordance with our commitment to our bank participants, they are not identified outside the Community unless they specifically authorize it. The other 2, Entourage Effect Capital (EEC) and Shield Compliance, are each well known within the cannabis industry and will enhance the ICLC’s potential value to its participants, enriching the spectrum of relevant and accretive cannabis industry experience, skillsets and perspectives available to them.

Trulieve Tax Announcement and the ICLC Growth Spurt

On March 12, leading cannabis tax lawyer James Mann made an extremely timely virtual presentation to ICLC participants regarding the announcement by Trulieve of its receipt of more than $100 million of tax refunds in connection with a challenge to what it owes under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code.

Another Big Move Out of the Shadows; First Citizens Bank, the nation’s 19th largest, poised to enter the Cannabis Market

A commentary on cannabis and hemp dated January 12, 2024 posted by First Citizens Bank on its website reflects the decision by the Bank to extend its very substantial hemp/CBD platform into the cannabis space.