Remember the article, "How to Survive a F-bomb Attack"? Did you think I made up all of the facts? You did? You were wrong. They were based not so loosely on the formal complaint in Layode v. Nicholson. I am attaching herewith the decision on that complaint issued on September 7, 2005 by EEOC Administrative Judge Francis Polito. It is not exactly the verbatim decision issued by Judge Polito. For some reason or another EEOC believes that its decisions are covered by the Privacy Act and therefore to the extent possible the names contained therein should not be disclosed. So I scanned in Judge Polito's decision to Omnipage Pro, converted the document to an MS Word doc, found the names and replaced them with an identifying label. As you are reading this decision, you might want to ask yourself these questions: Did Judge Polito find the Alleged Harasser guilty of harassing the Complainant because of her sex, creating a hostile sexual environment or both? If he found the Alleged Harasser guilty of only the former, to what extent if any is his decision vulnerable to attack on appeal if he did not find that the Alleged Harasser did not also abuse other similarly situated females? Did Judge Poltio find the harassment "severe or pervasive" or both? Can the agency be held liable if the admixture of sexual and non-sexual harassment constitutes pervasive harassment? What did Judge Polito find the agency did that it ought not have done to avoid vicarious liability? Did you think that Judge Polito's compensatory damage award was fair and reasonable? What might the Complainant adduced to increase her compensatory damage award. Did you notice that the agency did not even contest my attorney-fee application.They never do. Ever. Because my hourly rate is embarassingly low and because I keep track of my time well. Most importantly, whenever possible I make my clients do the leg and grunt work for me to reduce the bill.   more »