A Rivers Casino employee has been awarded a million dollars in damages after she won a court case against her employer. The news has spread across all social media platforms. Different reactions have met the news with others claiming that it was a well-planned move to punish an employer. All in all, the case was determined by the Jury and damages awarded.
Women face different degrees of harassment, which range from physical to sexual. The most prevalent is the issue of sexual harassment. Ladies that work in joints that people come to have fun are at more risk of being sexually harassed. Clients that get drunk are more likely to engage in harassment. It is the employer’s duty to spell clearly the rules of engagement to the clients. Clear rules will help protect the female employees against nasty spenders and revelers.
In April 214, a client is alleged to have sexually harassed Ms. Pelesky-Laush, a waitress in Rivers Casino. The Patron is said to have put his hands down her skirt. Additionally, the court was told that he put a casino chip in her bra and made contact with her breasts. After the incident, Allyson reported the matter to the Casino administration who promised never to admit the client again. It clearly shows that she had a good working relationship with her employer, and was willing to let it go. For some time, the patron was not allowed into the casino. The issue never arose again until when the management of the casino began asking her to allow the patron into the casino. When she decline, in fear of the same occurrence, the management decided to bypass her and admit the patron back.
Concerning a breach of the agreement between Allyson and her employer, she decided to sue the Casino. It was for putting her fundamental rights at risk by admitting back, to the Casino, a man that has proven to engage in sexual harassment
In the suit, Allyson claims being sexually harassed, and attacks the Casino management for creating a hostile working environment. Since the patron was readmitted, she became psychologically disturbed and felt like she was in a risky environment. To the employee, the employer failed to stand by the agreement as earlier mentioned. Ms. Pelesky-Laush begged his management not to allow the client back into the casino. Her plea was disregarded, and in June, the patron was readmitted without her knowledge.
According to the evidence submitted to the court, the client was allowed back because he was a “high roller.” The casino cared more about making money at the expense of the safety of the employees. In fact, in all the five years that Ms. Pelesky-Laush worked in the Casino, no single incident of that nature had been reported on her. It was convincing that, actually, something happened at the time. The judges squashed the reply by the defendant that the chip hit the jar tip, and rolled into her bra. Under rational thought, the explanation was not convincing.
According to her Attorney, $ 1 million was a large sum of money, but the evidence supported the decision. In fact, he noted, the Jury was disturbed by the submissions. The evidence was overwhelming, and the defendant could not exonerate himself from blame. Mr. Barry maintains that the patron was allowed back because he was a “high roller” who practiced a populist lifestyle.
The decision by the court of law sent cold chills to the casino management. The management refused to comment on the decision, and the sexual harassment policies. However, anonymous sources revealed that the casino was considering its options, and has disagreed with the court’s decision.
Days after the decision, the casino released a statement reiterating that Rivers was among the best places to work in the city. In fact, it was voted, “the best place to work” by the employees. However, Mr. Barry maintains that having been voted the best place does not directly give details about the Allyson case. It is noted that the casino did not have convincing explanations to why the patron was allowed back, or why he was banned in the first place. Additionally, it was difficult to explain why Ms. Pelesky-Laush was not informed of the decision in advance. In fact, the question remains what is in the anti-sexual harassment policy of Rivers Casino. After the case, Ms. Pelesky-Laush refused to speak to the media, but her Attorney expressed confidence that she was going back to work. According to Barry, his client was the one that had been wronged.