Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wilson Metal Casket Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
24 F.3d 836 (1994)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Wilson Metal Casket Co. (defendant) was owned and operated by Elmer Wilson. Wilson Metal employed William and Barbara Ellis, who were married. At one point, William Ellis took a temporary medical leave. During that time, Wilson moved Barbara Ellis’s office to a separate building from the main plant and sexually harassed her. Wilson repeatedly followed Barbara and, in isolated areas, would grab her, hold her, kiss her, and fondle her. Wilson made sexual comments to her and forced her to perform oral sex. Wilson stopped some of these actions when William Ellis returned to work. William Ellis confronted Wilson by phone, and Wilson terminated William and Barbara. Later, Wilson also harassed Dawn McMullan and also fondled her in isolated areas of the plant. After approximately three months, McMullan refused to come back to work, and Wilson fired her. William and Barbara Ellis filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff). The EEOC investigated and brought suit against Wilson Metal. After trial, the trial court found in favor of the EEOC and entered an injunction that, among other things, prohibited Wilson from asking any female employee to accompany him off the premises of the company unless accompanied by at least one other employee and from kissing or placing his hands on any female employee in the workplace. Wilson Metal appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Keith, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.