Haberman v. Cengage Learning, Inc., No. G041638

In plaintiff's action against her former employer alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) trial court did not err in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment because the acts of alleged harassment did not rise to the level of establishing a hostile work environment as a matter of law; 2) no evidence showed plaintiff suffered any adverse employment action because she complained about sexual harassment; 3) the trial court properly granted summary judgment as to plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim as the record does not contain any evidence showing plaintiff was subjected to extreme or outrageous conduct by defendants as a matter of law. 

Read Haberman v. Cengage Learning, Inc., No. G041638 [HTML]

Read Haberman v. Cengage Learning, Inc., No. G041638 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed December 21, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Fybel

Counsel
For Appellant:   Law Office of Elva P. Kopacz and Elva P. Kopacz

For Appellee:   Epstein Becker & Green, James A. Goodman and Tae Kim