Stoll

Stoll v. Runyon

Good Law
165 F.3d 1238·99 Daily Journal DAR 553·1999 WL 12998·75 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,781·78 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1312
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 15, 1999No. 97-17398California2,856 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

Cynthia Stoll, a single mother of three boys, went to work at the Sacramento Post Office in March, 1984, as a letter-sorting machine operator. She remained in that position for six years, until June 22, 1990, when she literally fled the workplace to escape the extreme sexual harassment she was experiencing. Following her departure, Stoll filed a complaint with the EEOC requesting back and front pay as well as attorneys’ fees. An extensive hearing before an EEOC administrative law judge (“ALJ”) was completed in 1994. The gruesome facts of this case, as found by the ALJ and admitted by the Post Office, are briefly summarized below.

The ALJ found that Stoll “was subjected to persistent and pervasive hostile environment sexual harassment from a blur of men.” Numerous male coworkers and supervisors asked Stoll to perform oral sex on them, commented on her body, shot rubber bands at her backside, asked her to wear lacy black underwear for them, bumped and rubbed up against her from behind, pressed their erect penises into her back while she was sorting mail and unable to get away, followed her into the women’s bathroom, asked her to go on vacations, “stalked her throughout the postal…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.