Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Diana Rahn vs. Junction City Foundry, Inc.

Date: 03-12-2001

Case Number: 00-2128-KHV

Judge: Kathryn H. Vratil

Court: United States District Court for the District of Kansas

Plaintiff's Attorney: Stephen C. Thornberry of The Meyers Law Firm, Kansas City, Missouri

Defendant's Attorney: Joseph Backer of Boggs, Backer & Bates, L.C., Kansas City, Missouri

Description:
Civil Rights Act - Title VII Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Claims - Diana Rahn, a 34-year-old former of Junction City Foundry, claimed a coworker repeatedly offered her money in exchange for her undergarments or to watch him masturbate.

She also claimed that she was presented with cast-iron penis images by other workers at the foundry. The alleged harassment took place from April 1998 through December 1998. She reported the harassment to her supervisor and to the personnel manager. Her complaints eventually resulted in retaliation and she was eventually forced to quit her job.


Defendant claimed that it was not given proper notice of the alleged harassment by the plaintiff.




Outcome:
Plaintiff's verdict for $149,030.00.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Unknown
Defendant's Experts:
Unknown
Comments:
E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to verdicts@morelaw.com.

About This Case

What was the outcome of Diana Rahn vs. Junction City Foundry, Inc.?

The outcome was: Plaintiff's verdict for $149,030.00.

Which court heard Diana Rahn vs. Junction City Foundry, Inc.?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the District of Kansas, MO. The presiding judge was Kathryn H. Vratil.

Who were the attorneys in Diana Rahn vs. Junction City Foundry, Inc.?

Plaintiff's attorney: Stephen C. Thornberry of The Meyers Law Firm, Kansas City, Missouri. Defendant's attorney: Joseph Backer of Boggs, Backer & Bates, L.C., Kansas City, Missouri.

When was Diana Rahn vs. Junction City Foundry, Inc. decided?

This case was decided on March 12, 2001.