Gantt v. Security, USA, Inc. 56 F.3d 547 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. __, resulting in a
$2.25 million jury award for a female security guard whose supervisor aided and abetting a
non-employee in the sexual harassment, armed assault in her workplace. The plaintiff,
Dominique Gantt, was kidnapped from her workplace by her
ex-boyfriend, in a choke hold, with a shotgun against her chin. He
held her captive for six hours, through three states, raped her and
repeatedly threatened to kill her.
Gantt v. Security USA was the cover story in the Maryland Daily Record,
Legal Section, on July 30, 2004. It has received widespread coverage
which can be accessed, in large part, through the internet. See National
Crime Victim's Bar Association Press Release, at
www.ncdsv.org/images/NCVBAApplauds225millionVerdict.pdf.
The District Court, via Judge Deborah Chasanow, granted summary
judgment to Security USA. Ms. Gantt appealed. Ms. Martin established
that Ms. Gantt could sue her employer for intentional infliction of emotional
distress, as an exception to the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act. Ms.
Gantt's supervisor, Sgt. Claggett, intended to injure Ms. Gantt by
forwarding phone calls from the harasser to her, at work, in violation of a
protective order, and forcing Ms. Gantt to assume an outside Post to make
her accessible to the attacker.
Ms. Gantt's 4th Circuit Appellate Brief is reprinted at GanttBrief4thCir. and her Reply Brief is reprinted at
GanttReplyBrief4thCir.
A coalition of Women's Organizations and Victim's Rights Advocates filed an amicus curiae Brief before
the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the arguments made by Ms. Martin in her Petition for Certiorari
(review by the Supreme Court).
This case could have been filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as a sex
discrimination/sexual harassment case, since Ms. Gantt's supervisor created and maintained a hostile work
environment for her, on the basis of sex, by allowing her ex-boyfriend to sexually harass her at work. See
discussion of Martin v. Howard University and Alice Gresham Bullock, Unfortunately, Ms. Gantt's
original attorney did not recognize this case as a sexual harassment case and did not timely file a charge
with the EEOC. Ms. Gantt's right to file under Title VII or comparable Maryland Human Rights Law was
therefore lost, due to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Ms. Martin attempted to add a claim of
sexual harassment, based on the Equal Protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution, since Security USA
is a government contractor and Ms. Gantt was stationed at a federal building, where she was harassed,
assaulted and kidnapped. While the case was pending, the Supreme Court decided a case, Correctional
Services v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001), that narrowed the standing law of more than thirty years, in
Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Malesko, decided by a divided Court, held that
private corporations could not be held liable for Constitutional violations even where they performed duties
that would constitute "state action," or acted "under color of law."
The Gantt case illustrates the importance of retaining an attorney who has expertise with the specific legal
issues involved in the cause of action from the beginning of a lawsuit and before the deadline for filing
administrative claims expires. A charge must be filed with the EEOC within 180 days of the discriminatory
conduct, of 300 days where the EEOC has a Work Sharing Agreement with the applicable state or local
Fair Employment Practice Agency.
See:
U.S. Court of Appeals 4th Circuit Opinion, pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031033.P.pdf
U.S Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari
www.abanet.org/nawl/news/GantBrief.pdf
www.ncdsv.org/images/GanttvSecurityUSA--JuryVerdict.pdf
www.ncdsv.org/publications_workplace.html
National Association of Women, www.abanet.org/nawl/news/release_gant.html
www.bna.com/daily/dlr/casg.htm
www.bna.com/current/wlr/casg.htm
IPMA Assessment Council News (PAGE 8)
Employment Law Briefing (page 6)
4th Circuit Revives Part of Worker's Intentionally Inflicted
Dykema Labor New
www.wrf.com/publication_newsletters.cfm?sp=newsletter&year=2004&ID=13&publication_id=10005&a
m...
subscript.bna.com/SAMPLES/osh.nsf/ 0/7fd957c91fac631285256fb90005348f?OpenDocument
www.infocusmag.com/04april/washreport.htm
www.dykema.com/labor/news/elaw0105.pdf
www.ballardspahr.com/press/article.asp?ID=926
http://pubs.bna.com/ip/BNA/ccw.nsf/is/A0B0N2P0E4
mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/ bna-corpcounselweekly/2005-March/000003.html
mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/ bna-workplace/2005-March/000002.html
www.ipma-hr.org/filetracker.cfm?fileid=375
www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/ archive/2004_11_21_SCOTUSblog.cfm
www.lera.uiuc.edu/Pubs/newsletters/ LELNewsletters/2004/2004-03.htm
employerslawyer.blogspot.com/ 2004_01_01_employerslawyer_archive.html
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase. pl?court=4th&navby=year&year=2004-1
www.frankgrin.com/employment/ELBja04.pdf
www.asse.org/oshreporter.htm
www.courthousenews.com/circuitsummaries/4thcircuit.htm
www.ballardspahr.com/files/tbl_s11Newsletters/
PDFFile142/367/LaborandEmploymentLineMarch2004.pdf
www.law.utk.edu/academic/CURRSTUDENT/
Hirsch%20(Employment%20Handout)%20(Spring%2005).pdf
www.atlanet.org/Publications/LRindex04.pdf
www.bnataxmanagement.com/current/osh/casg.htm
www.texasadvisor.com/frames/resources/apr2004.html
www.employeerights.info/weekincourts.php
www.law.utk.edu/academic/CURRSTUDENT/
Hirsch%20_Final%20Employment%20syllabus_Spring%202005_.pdf
$2.25 million jury award for a female security guard whose supervisor aided and abetting a
non-employee in the sexual harassment, armed assault in her workplace. The plaintiff,
Dominique Gantt, was kidnapped from her workplace by her
ex-boyfriend, in a choke hold, with a shotgun against her chin. He
held her captive for six hours, through three states, raped her and
repeatedly threatened to kill her.
Gantt v. Security USA was the cover story in the Maryland Daily Record,
Legal Section, on July 30, 2004. It has received widespread coverage
which can be accessed, in large part, through the internet. See National
Crime Victim's Bar Association Press Release, at
www.ncdsv.org/images/NCVBAApplauds225millionVerdict.pdf.
The District Court, via Judge Deborah Chasanow, granted summary
judgment to Security USA. Ms. Gantt appealed. Ms. Martin established
that Ms. Gantt could sue her employer for intentional infliction of emotional
distress, as an exception to the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act. Ms.
Gantt's supervisor, Sgt. Claggett, intended to injure Ms. Gantt by
forwarding phone calls from the harasser to her, at work, in violation of a
protective order, and forcing Ms. Gantt to assume an outside Post to make
her accessible to the attacker.
Ms. Gantt's 4th Circuit Appellate Brief is reprinted at GanttBrief4thCir. and her Reply Brief is reprinted at
GanttReplyBrief4thCir.
A coalition of Women's Organizations and Victim's Rights Advocates filed an amicus curiae Brief before
the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the arguments made by Ms. Martin in her Petition for Certiorari
(review by the Supreme Court).
This case could have been filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as a sex
discrimination/sexual harassment case, since Ms. Gantt's supervisor created and maintained a hostile work
environment for her, on the basis of sex, by allowing her ex-boyfriend to sexually harass her at work. See
discussion of Martin v. Howard University and Alice Gresham Bullock, Unfortunately, Ms. Gantt's
original attorney did not recognize this case as a sexual harassment case and did not timely file a charge
with the EEOC. Ms. Gantt's right to file under Title VII or comparable Maryland Human Rights Law was
therefore lost, due to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Ms. Martin attempted to add a claim of
sexual harassment, based on the Equal Protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution, since Security USA
is a government contractor and Ms. Gantt was stationed at a federal building, where she was harassed,
assaulted and kidnapped. While the case was pending, the Supreme Court decided a case, Correctional
Services v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001), that narrowed the standing law of more than thirty years, in
Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Malesko, decided by a divided Court, held that
private corporations could not be held liable for Constitutional violations even where they performed duties
that would constitute "state action," or acted "under color of law."
The Gantt case illustrates the importance of retaining an attorney who has expertise with the specific legal
issues involved in the cause of action from the beginning of a lawsuit and before the deadline for filing
administrative claims expires. A charge must be filed with the EEOC within 180 days of the discriminatory
conduct, of 300 days where the EEOC has a Work Sharing Agreement with the applicable state or local
Fair Employment Practice Agency.
See:
U.S. Court of Appeals 4th Circuit Opinion, pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031033.P.pdf
U.S Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari
www.abanet.org/nawl/news/GantBrief.pdf
www.ncdsv.org/images/GanttvSecurityUSA--JuryVerdict.pdf
www.ncdsv.org/publications_workplace.html
National Association of Women, www.abanet.org/nawl/news/release_gant.html
www.bna.com/daily/dlr/casg.htm
www.bna.com/current/wlr/casg.htm
IPMA Assessment Council News (PAGE 8)
Employment Law Briefing (page 6)
4th Circuit Revives Part of Worker's Intentionally Inflicted
Dykema Labor New
www.wrf.com/publication_newsletters.cfm?sp=newsletter&year=2004&ID=13&publication_id=10005&a
m...
subscript.bna.com/SAMPLES/osh.nsf/ 0/7fd957c91fac631285256fb90005348f?OpenDocument
www.infocusmag.com/04april/washreport.htm
www.dykema.com/labor/news/elaw0105.pdf
www.ballardspahr.com/press/article.asp?ID=926
http://pubs.bna.com/ip/BNA/ccw.nsf/is/A0B0N2P0E4
mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/ bna-corpcounselweekly/2005-March/000003.html
mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/ bna-workplace/2005-March/000002.html
www.ipma-hr.org/filetracker.cfm?fileid=375
www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/ archive/2004_11_21_SCOTUSblog.cfm
www.lera.uiuc.edu/Pubs/newsletters/ LELNewsletters/2004/2004-03.htm
employerslawyer.blogspot.com/ 2004_01_01_employerslawyer_archive.html
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase. pl?court=4th&navby=year&year=2004-1
www.frankgrin.com/employment/ELBja04.pdf
www.asse.org/oshreporter.htm
www.courthousenews.com/circuitsummaries/4thcircuit.htm
www.ballardspahr.com/files/tbl_s11Newsletters/
PDFFile142/367/LaborandEmploymentLineMarch2004.pdf
www.law.utk.edu/academic/CURRSTUDENT/
Hirsch%20(Employment%20Handout)%20(Spring%2005).pdf
www.atlanet.org/Publications/LRindex04.pdf
www.bnataxmanagement.com/current/osh/casg.htm
www.texasadvisor.com/frames/resources/apr2004.html
www.employeerights.info/weekincourts.php
www.law.utk.edu/academic/CURRSTUDENT/
Hirsch%20_Final%20Employment%20syllabus_Spring%202005_.pdf
| Gantt v. Security USA |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Photo by Maximillan Franz
Maryland Daily Record
Maryland Daily Record