## Facts

- Michelle Ann Stockett worked for closely held, substantially integrated Florida corporations controlled by Frank Tolin from December 30, 1985 to about April 22, 1987, first as an intern and then as staff.
- Tolin, the owner/manager and dominant decisionmaker, was widely regarded as “in charge,” and employees were aware of his repeated sexual overtures toward female staff.
- Tolin subjected Stockett to repeated unwelcome sexual conduct, including pressing his body against her so she was unable to move, grabbing her breasts, putting his tongue in her ear, and licking her neck.
- Tolin also made frequent explicit and degrading sexual propositions and comments to Stockett.
- In April 1987, Tolin threatened to fire Stockett if she did not have sex with him; she resigned shortly thereafter.
- Stockett presented evidence of emotional and physical effects from the conduct, including gastrointestinal problems, loss of self-confidence, and difficulty trusting men.
- Stockett also brought a wage-and-hour claim alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

## Issues

1. Whether the owner/manager’s intentional, pervasive, unwelcome sexual conduct created Title VII liability for hostile work environment sexual harassment.
2. Whether the threat of termination conditioned on sex constituted quid pro quo sexual harassment under Title VII.
3. Whether the harassment and termination threat made working conditions so intolerable that Stockett’s resignation amounted to constructive discharge under Title VII.
4. Whether the same conduct satisfied Florida tort elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, invasion of privacy, and false imprisonment.
5. Whether defendants violated the FLSA’s wage-and-hour requirements.

## Decision

- After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Stockett.
- The court held Tolin and the corporate defendants liable under Title VII for hostile work environment sexual harassment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and constructive discharge.
- The court held defendants liable under Florida law for intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, invasion of privacy, and false imprisonment.
- The court found defendants liable for FLSA wage-and-hour violations.
- The court granted declaratory and injunctive relief and awarded compensatory and punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII prohibits sex-based harassment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.
- Conditioning continued employment on acquiescing to sexual demands constitutes quid pro quo harassment and supports Title VII liability.
- Constructive discharge is established when a reasonable person would find conditions so intolerable that resignation is a fitting response.
- Under Florida law, intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causing severe emotional distress.
- Nonconsensual, offensive touching supports battery; intrusive sexual conduct may support invasion of privacy; unlawful restraint of a person’s movement supports false imprisonment.
- Closely related entities under common control may be treated as a single employer for employment-discrimination liability, and an owner’s actions may be attributed to the employer.

## Conclusion

The court found that an owner/manager’s repeated unwelcome sexual touching, explicit propositions, and a termination threat conditioned on sex established hostile environment and quid pro quo harassment and supported constructive discharge under Title VII, while also satisfying Florida tort standards and warranting relief for separate FLSA wage-and-hour violations.


Stockett v. Tolin, 791 F. Supp. 1536 (S.D. Fla. 1992)