Employment Law

Sexual Harassment Claim Leads to $2.5M Verdict: What the Employer Got Wrong

By:

Last Updated: July 31, 2025

6 minute engagement

Every savvy HR pro knows that employee allegations of sexual harassment are not to be taken lightly. Dropping the ball on conducting a prompt and thorough workplace investigation – and then taking swift remedial action if needed – can lead to big legal trouble.

But just how far does the duty to investigate and remediate go? Where is the line that gets employers into safe territory?

If the allegations in a recent case from Nebraska are true, an employer did not reach that line – and is paying the price.

Case Background: How the Harassment Allegations Escalated

Katrina Beran began working at a skilled nursing facility as a certified nursing assistant in March 2019.

About nine months later, the facility brought on another certified nursing assistant. His name was Christopher Eugene – and according to Beran and others, he caused a lot of problems for residents and female employees at work.

Soon after he began working, Eugene allegedly:

said “all women are crybabies”
made repeated comments about wanting to touch a female nursing assistant “any chance he would get”
groped a female nursing assistant, and
made derogatory remarks about women.

Was Reprimand Just an Empty Gesture?

Supervisors didn’t stand idly by. In January of 2020, they reprimanded him – but for what the court’s decision called “poor performance.” At that time, they mentioned that female residents had asked that he not assist with caring for them.

They also moved him to another hall within the same facility, which is when he began to work alongside Beran.

Apparently, things only got worse from there. Beran said Eugene engaged in a variety of egregious sexual misconduct, including groping her buttocks and grabbing her breasts with both hands.

Beran reported the alleged misconduct, which also included telling her she “needed to cool [her] hormones” and refusing to help with work duties, to the facility’s assistant director of nursing.

Questionable Response Doesn’t Resolve Things

She said the assistant director essentially dismissed her report of sexual harassment, telling her that she was “just stressed out” because the facility was short-staffed. Beran said she specifically told the assistant director that the problem was with Eugene and not her workload, and the director granted her request for a transfer away from him.

Eugene allegedly managed to continue harassing Beran after the transfer, such as by blocking her path in the cafeteria and even elbowing her.

Beran then went up the ladder to the facility’s director of nursing to report Eugene’s alleged history of sexual harassment and assault.

The director’s response, according to Beran: She was “making a bigger deal out of it than it was.” Although the director told Beran she would begin an investigation, Beran got the sense that she did not consider the issue to be a priority.

Beran’s read was apparently accurate, as the employer didn’t conduct a thorough investigation into the sexual harassment allegations. It did, however, reprimand him in late January for making co-workers “feel uncomfortable.”

A short time later, Beran reported Eugene for shouting a racial epithet at work. The next day, the employer terminated Beran’s employment, saying she had “targeted” Eugene by making a “false” report about his alleged use of profanity.

Employee Files Title VII Lawsuit

Beran filed a Title VII lawsuit, alleging she was subjected to a hostile work environment.

A jury awarded her $500,000 in compensatory damages and another $2.5 million in punitive damages. The trial court reduced the latter figure to $200,000 to comply with an applicable statutory cap on damages. It also tacked on about $96,000 in costs and attorneys’ fees.

On appeal, the employer said Beran didn’t present enough evidence to show she was subjected to an unlawful sexually hostile work environment. It also argued that even if things got bad, it was off the hook because it took prompt remedial action in response to Beran’s allegations.

The appeals court disagreed, saying there was enough evidence for a jury to find Beran was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment.

Where the Employer’s Investigation and Response Fell Short

The appeals court explained that it is proper to examine the totality of the circumstances, including the frequency and severity of the alleged misconduct. Here, a jury could reasonably find that Beran was subjected to verbal and physical misconduct over three full-time shifts. Even just the allegation of shoving Beran against a wall and groping her breasts was enough to send the case to the jury, the appeals court said.

The jury also reasonably could find that the employer’s response to Beran’s allegations didn’t go far enough, the appeals court added. It pointed to four specifics that supported the conclusion that the employer did not take effective remedial action:

Supervisors testified that Beran didn’t report sexual harassment, which conflicted with Beran’s testimony and could reasonably have been deemed false by the jury.
The employer’s disciplinary interventions with Eugene did not even address the alleged sexual harassment, instead addressing “negativity” toward colleagues and general work performance.
The evidence indicated that the employer’s two disciplinary interventions weren’t effective.
The employer didn’t communicate with Beran regarding its handling of her complaints against Eugene.

The district court’s judgment was affirmed.

Key Lessons for HR Leaders on Sexual Harassment Investigations

Here are some key points to keep in mind to help avoid legal liability for sexual harassment in the workplace:

Prevention is key. It is critical to have policies and complaint procedures in place and provide periodic training to all employees.
Take all sexual misconduct allegations at face value. Don’t dismiss allegations of sexual misconduct by assuming that the problem lies elsewhere. The employee in this case said she was essentially rebuffed by a supervisory employee who told her it was workplace stress rather than sexual harassment that was making her upset.
All reported concerns count. Remember that a report of sexual harassment can be made by a third party and need not be made by the target of the harassment.
Investigate promptly. Once a report of alleged sexual harassment is received, have an impartial party conduct a prompt and thorough investigation.
Match your response to the severity of the misconduct. If you find that sexual misconduct occurred, take prompt and effective corrective action that is proportionate to the offense. As applicable EEOC guidance on sexual harassment explains, “[c]orrective action should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offense.”
Correct with care. An employer’s corrective action cannot leave the complaining party worse off than they were before. For example, you cannot address harassment by moving the victim away from the accused to a less desirable position.
Show empathy, even before you know whether the allegations are true. If you intentionally or unintentionally give an employee the sense that their allegations lack merit, you have just moved them one step closer to getting in touch with a lawyer.