Case No. 2 Court of Appeals

KNIGHT v. WILKINSON

Parties: Appellant – William Knight Respondent – Sally Wilkinson

Issues:

(1) Whether Knight established a prima facie case of quid pro quo sexual harassment.

(2) Whether Knight established a prima facie case of hostile work environment sexual harassment.

Facts:

William Knight was a recent graduate from the Minneapolis College of Cosmetology, majoring as a manicurist. Upon graduating, Knight sought employment at several beauty parlors in the St. Cloud area and received an interview at Main Street Salon and Nails. He was interviewed by the owner, Sally Wilkinson. During the interview, Wilkinson asked Knight if he was married or otherwise involved. Knight responded that he was single, and spent his spare time working on his car. During the interview, Wilkinson referred to Knight as a “stud” and a “macho man”. Knight was ultimately hired for the manicurist position.

Knight started working on April 1, 2005. Knight was successful in the following months, and established a clientele. During the first couple months of employment Knight noticed that Wilkinson would spend a lot of time around him and would occasionally touch his arms and neck. As time went on, Wilkinson started telling jokes, which Knight found to be offensive. Other employees were present when the jokes were being told, and laughed at Wilkinson’s jokes.

Knight was one of three men that worked at the salon. The other two men, Devin Miles and Neil Gilbert, were hairstylists. Wilkinson treated Miles and Gilbert in the same manner as Knight. Neither Miles nor Gilbert ever complained about Wilkinson’s touching or telling jokes.

On one occasion, Wilkinson asked Knight if he wanted to come over to her house after work for dinner and a few cocktails. Knight refused the offer. Following the refusal, Wilkinson did not speak to Knight except when absolutely necessary.

Knight continued in his employment at Main Street Salon and Nails for approximately one year. Over the course of the year, Wilkinson touched Knight with increased frequency. On a couple of occasions, Wilkinson slapped Knight on the posterior when he was passing by. On one of those occasions, Wilkinson stated to another female employee, “Isn’t the scenery beautiful around here” to which they both laughed. Knight became very upset about Wilkinson’s behavior, and began treatment with a psychologist. Knight called the salon on May 5, 2006, and informed the receptionist he would not be working that day and was quitting.

Knight retained an attorney and filed suit in Stearns County District Court, alleging sexual harassment. Wilkinson brought a summary judgment motion arguing to the court, that even assuming everything Knight was true, he failed to establish a claim of sexual harassment as a matter of law. Knight argued there were sufficient facts to support a claim of quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment. The Trial Court agreed with Wilkinson and dismissed Knight’s lawsuit as a matter of law. Knight now appeals.

Authorities: The following is a brief summary of the points of law you should keep in mind preparing your briefs and arguments (you are not limited to these points, they are just good starter questions to think about). You will also notice some cases attached. These cases represent some of the materials you can use for your research. No further research is necessary.

Issue #1 – Sexual Harassment

What is the legal definition of sexual harassment, as applied to this case? Was William Knight subjected to sexual harassment? If so, did such harassment affect the conditions of his employment? Was William Knight discriminated against based on any protected status?

Issue #2 –Hostile Work Environment

Was a hostile work environment created after William Knight refused Sally Wilkinson’s social invitations? What elements should be considered when determining whether a hostile work environment was created or not? Was there any conduct or communication in the work environment that negatively affected William Knight’s employment status?

Cases and Related Materials: MN. Stat. §363.03, subdivision 1(2) (Minnesota Human Rights Act) Bohen v. City of East Chicago, IND. 799 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir. 1986) Cummings v. Koehnen, et al., 586 N.W.2d 418, (Mn. 1997) Klink v. Ramsey County, 397 N.W.2d 894, (Mn. App. 1986) Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 911, n.22 (11th Cir. 1992)