 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Psychiatric assessment of emotional injury and emotional damages in sexual harassment litigation: Case example #2
Ms. James had worked in management positions at an aviation industry consulting firm for five years. She had a lifelong interest in aviation and hoped to reach the firm's highest levels of management. Most of upper management personnel were male. Nevertheless, Ms. James believed that her productivity and competency would be more significant than her gender in achieving this goal. After her last promotion, Mr. Murray became Ms. James' new supervisor. Mr. Murray reported directly to the CEO of the company, and was known to be the CEO's close friend.
Ms. James' new position required that she travel extensively with Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray began making suggestive sexual comments to Ms. James while on business trips. He began to touch her with increasing frequency in ways that were not overtly inappropriate but which, in conjunction with his suggestive remarks, she found uncomfortable. Mr. Murray then began brushing against her body. When Ms. James objected, Mr. Murray would smile and make statements such as, “I know you really like it.” Ms. Jones was uncomfortable and distressed, but believed she could handle the situation herself by ignoring the behavior and maintaining more physical distance.
After three months of such incidents, Mr. Murray's behavior began to escalate. He began to invite Ms. James to use hotel hot tubs with him, or to come to his room to watch pornographic movies. Ms. James consistently declined these invitations, and made clear that she found his behavior inappropriate, offensive and upsetting. She asked Mr. Murray to stop on many occasions, but was afraid to report his behavior. Ms. James was concerned that a formal complaint, which according to the firm's sexual harassment policy would have to be made to the CEO, would jeopardize her career.
Ms. James became withdrawn and irritable, an obvious change in her outgoing personality. She no longer enjoyed her work and began dreading the business trips which she had previously enjoyed. She was depressed, anxious, had trouble sleeping and developed headaches.
Ms. James then began to hear office gossip that she and Mr. Murray were having an affair. Some coworkers implied that Ms. James was trying to “sleep her way to the top.” She was embarrassed and humiliated, and confronted Mr. Murray about this gossip. He did not deny that he was the source of the rumors, and added that they were not exactly untrue since, “It was only a matter of time.” At that point, Ms. James decided to speak with the CEO informally about Mr. Murray. The CEO listened to Ms. James' complaints but dismissed them with a “boys will be boys” response. The CEO acknowledged that he had heard the rumors, but advised Ms. James not to take them or Mr. Murray's behavior seriously.
Ms. James' distress became even more pronounced after her conversation with the CEO. Ms. James believed that she should have been able to find a way to manage the situation. The CEO's dismissal of her complaints reinforced Ms. James' sense that this was her problem. Her symptoms of depression and anxiety worsened.
However, Ms. James did not want to leave her job. She also did not want to file a formal complaint fearing that it would jeopardize her present and future employment opportunities. She worked in a small industry, and knew that other companies were likely to hear about any formal complaint.
Ms. James tried to avoid Mr. Murray whenever possible. She refused to attend dinners or after hour meetings with him. Mr. Murray's inappropriate verbal comments, touching and invitations continued. He also began to comment with an aggrieved tone that Ms. James was playing “hard to get.” Despite Ms. James' attempts to ignore Mr. Murray, he became increasingly aggressive and she became increasingly upset.
Three months after Ms. James complained to the CEO, Mr. Murray came to Ms. James' hotel room at 2 AM . He was intoxicated. He demanded that Ms. James open the door. Ms. James became frightened, and called hotel security. Mr. Murray was escorted back to his own room. The next morning he was angry with Ms. James for “embarrassing him.” He stated that his behavior was “her fault for trying to avoid him” and that she should “give in to the inevitable if she wanted to make it in the company.”
Ms. James resigned and filed an EEOC complaint for sexual harassment.
Both the CEO and Mr. Murray acknowledged that Ms. James' allegations were for the most part true, but claimed that she was oversensitive to what was “normal office behavior.” Mr. Murray admitted that he had come to Ms. James' hotel room intoxicated, but denied that he had made any statements implying that Ms. James' future success was contingent on her acquiescing to his sexual demands.
Ms. James became even more depressed and anxious after leaving her job. She lost weight and could not sleep. She would cry every day, and lost interest in most activities. Ms. James underwent psychiatric evaluation one year after her resignation. She had not been able to get another job in her profession, and had been unemployed for the entire year. She demonstrated continued symptoms of depression and anxiety and was hopeless about her future.
Ms. James had never experienced this degree of emotional distress before nor had she ever been unemployed for this period of time. She began to question her assumptions that working hard and doing a good job would lead to advancement. She had not sought treatment or counseling. Psychological testing was consistent with a diagnosis of depression, and did not suggest any character pathology.
Discussion
This straightforward set of undisputed facts allowed the mental health expert to focus the evaluation on the effects of the behaviors and their psychological meaning. The examiner should consider whether the effects are proportional to the events described and whether other factors unrelated to these events caused or contributed to the psychological outcome.
Opinions
The mental health expert found that Ms. James had a diagnosis of major depression, single episode, of moderate severity. This psychological state was related and proportional to the severity of her workplace experiences, her emotional responses at the time the events occurred, and the psychological meaning Ms. James attached to these events. The examiner also determined that Ms. James' functioning was impaired. This depression and functional impairment was exacerbated by prolonged unemployment in an individual who was used to being active and productive, and who derived self esteem from working.
The psychiatrist concluded that Ms. James had developed depression, proximately caused by the workplace events and associated with significant functional impairment. Some of her symptoms were due to the effects of unemployment and litigation. The examiner felt Ms. James' was unlikely to regain meaningful employment until she had received appropriate treatment. He believed that Ms. James' prognosis with treatment and resolution of the litigation was good. This opinion was based on her lack of psychiatric history, prior history of good functioning and good coping skills, and support from her husband. Nevertheless, some losses associated with the workplace events were likely to be permanent, particularly if Ms. James were unable to find employment within her chosen career.
2501 North Glebe Road, Suite 204 Arlington , VA 22207
Phone: (703) 875-0435 Fax: (703) 875-0434
E-mail: lhgoldmd@gmail.com