Floyd Eighmey This is Me

 Web References

1. 1. Landlaw Specialty Publishers

   www.landlaw.com/customer/viewd - [Cached]

   Published on: 8/28/2004   Last Visited: 7/16/2005

   Respondent first contends on appeal that there is insufficient evidence to support the Hearing Officer's finding that Complainant reasonably believed Floyd Eighmey was his supervisor and, therefore, the Hearing Officer erred as a matter of law when she held Respondent strictly liable for Eighmey's harassing and discriminatory conduct toward Complainant. In support of its contention, Respondent states that there was uncontroverted evidence at the hearing that Eighmey worked in a different department from Complainant and that he had no actual authority to hire or fire Complainant. The Hearing Officer specifically found that "although Eighmey worked in a different department and was not in Complainant's direct chain of command, Eighmey was a supervisory employee, and was directed by Lyons to find Complainant on that particular occasion ...employee, and reasonably believed that Eighmey had authority to direct his work."
   ...
   Eighmey, a floor supervisor who was responsible for keeping the stadium clean, was directed by Lyons, Respondent's general manager, to find Complainant and direct him to clean one of the stadium's concourses. Indeed, Eighmey, acting upon the authority conferred upon him by Lyons, found Complainant, directed him to clean the concourse, threatened to have him fired, and took steps to carry out on his threat.
   ...
   In this matter, Eighmey was authorized by Lyons, the general manager, to direct Complainant to clean the concourse, one of his major day-to-day activities.
   ...
   However, the Hearing Officer specifically found that "Complainant has been consistent regarding the central allegation in this matter: that Eighmey spoke the offensive terms."