State Court Overturns Sex Harassment Verdict New Trial Ordered Over Lawsuit Against Kootenai Sheriff’s Department

The Idaho Supreme Court has ordered a new trial in a sexual harassment lawsuit against the Kootenai County Sheriff’s Department.

In 1994, an 11-woman, one-man jury decided that Randia Fowler had not been the victim of sexual harassment when she was a sheriff’s deputy.

But in a precedent-setting decision, the Supreme Court overturned that decision earlier this month, saying some instructions given to the jury were incorrect.

The high court’s ruling means alleged victims do not have to show that the sexual harassment was directed specifically at them in order to win their cases, said Janet Jenkins, Fowler’s attorney.

“I consider it quite an important statement of the law on sexual harassment for the state of Idaho,” she said.

But Marc Lyons, the sheriff’s attorney, said the decision is confusing and seems to allow a person to sue someone for poor manners rather than sexual harassment.

“If we have to try our case again, we fully believe a second jury will reach the same conclusion” - that Fowler was not harassed, he said.

Fowler began working for the Sheriff’s Department in 1984. She was fired for insubordination in 1990 after refusing to accept a transfer from the patrol division to the civil division.

Fowler filed her suit against the department in 1991. She claimed foul and sexually explicit language, as well as a swimsuit calendar and “condom plant” novelty gift, created a hostile work environment.

During the trial, she said some officers spoke graphically about their sex lives and even referred to her sex life with her husband - also a deputy.

Fowler said she was retaliated against after she took her concerns to Sheriff Pierce Clegg. She was given positions she considered a demotion and believes deputies assisted her in the field more slowly.

But during the trial on the harassment charges, sheriff’s officials portrayed Fowler as a deputy with a bad attitude who claimed harassment whenever she didn’t get her way.

Several other female employees testified that they did not find the office environment hostile. In one case, a woman was the instigator of an office joke that Fowler found offensive.

In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court said the jury instructions misstated the law on sexual harassment.

“The jury instructions … required Fowler to prove the harassment ‘was based upon sex.’ A subsequent instruction stated Fowler must prove that ‘because of her gender, she was the object of harassment,”’ wrote Justice Cathy Silak.

Lyons had argued that the foul language and “condom plant” were not aimed at Fowler and, therefore, could not be considered harassment.

Jenkins said she talked to some of the jurors after the trial. They told her they thought some of the behavior was inappropriate but had to rule out a sexual harassment verdict because the behavior wasn’t directed at Fowler.

Silak, in her opinion, disagreed.

“Harassers should not be able to escape liability for their conduct simply because they can show their behavior is not directed at women but is simply in accordance with the level of conduct prevalent prior to the woman’s entry in the workplace,” she wrote.

Lyons, however, believes the Supreme Court decision creates too much leeway. “I am concerned that the Supreme Court is unknowingly expanding the Human Rights Commission Act to simply include what people might perceive to be rude behavior and not necessarily behavior that has something to do with discrimination against a person for a particular sex,” he said.

A date for a new trial has not been set.

, DataTimes