A federal appeals court has reinstated a sexual harassment claim filed by a former county worker who did not report problems with her supervisor because of fear of retaliation.

Sheri Minarsky had worked as a part-time secretary for Montrose, Pennsylvania-based Susquehanna County’s Department of Affairs, including spending each Friday in an isolated location with the former Director of the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to Tuesday’s ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia in Sheri Minarsky v. Susquehanna County, Thomas Yadlosky, Jr.

Ms. Minarsky said she was frequently sexually harassed by the director, including by his trying to kiss her on the lips before he left each Friday, sending her sexually explicit emails, and questioning her about her whereabouts during her lunch hour.

The director knew Ms. Minarsky’s young daughter was ill and that she depended on her job to pay medical bills. “She states that she feared speaking up to him in any context, let alone to protest her harassment, because he would react and sometimes become ‘nasty,’” said the ruling.

The director, who had had previous complaints filed against him, was eventually terminated after another supervisor overheard Ms. Minarsky discuss the situation with a friend. Ms. Minarksy left the job several years later.

She filed suit against the director and the county in U.S. District Court in Scranton, Pennsylvania, on charges including sexual harassment. 

The court dismissed the charges against the supervisor and granted the county summary judgment, stating the county had acted reasonably, and citing Ms. Minarsky’s silence about the harassment.

A three-judge appeals court panel unanimously reinstated Ms. Minarsky’s claim of sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment.

The panel’s ruling said there are questions including whether the county’s sexual harassment policy was effective; whether, because Ms. Minarksy worked alone with the supervisor, someone should have ensured she was not being victimized; and whether the director’s firing was less a reflection of the policy’s effectiveness than exasperation with the director. 

“We do not answer these questions, but conclude that there exists enough of a dispute of material fact, and thus a jury should judge all of the facts” as to whether the County exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior, said the panel, referring to two 1998 Supreme Court rulings on the issue, Burlington Industries Inc. v. Kimberly Ellerth and Beth Ann Faragher v. City of Boca Raton.

The ruling states also that “we cannot ignore Minarsky’s testimony as to why she did not report (the director’s) conduct, and we believe that a jury could find that she did not act unreasonably under the circumstances.”

The opinion includes a long footnote referring to the #MeToo movement, stating, “Recent news articles report that studies have shown that not only is sex-based harassment in the workplace pervasive, but also the failure to report is widespread.”

The case was remanded for further proceedings.