PNC Bank May Protect Your Money But What About The Employees?
It may well be a landmark case, and every retail operation, from auto parts stores to banks, had better heed what has just happened to a PNC Bank retail location in Glen Ridge, New Jersey. According to the New Jersey Law Journal, in a case reported by law writer Charles Toutant, “…a New Jersey jury has awarded $2.4 million to a former PNC Bank employee who said the company failed to protect her from unwelcome touching by a customer.”
Retail employers may have been led to believe that sexual harassment can only occur between employees, but the award has just shown that when an operation fails to protect an employee from an abusive customer, there are also legal grounds.
Patrick Pignatello
As Patrick Pignatello has since passed away as the result of this 2013 incident, and as he cannot defend himself, it would be unethical of me to mention his name again.
The man was a regular patron of the Glen Ridge PNC Bank. The defendant, Nancy Erika Smith, was cornered by the man in the vestibule leading to the bank. He groped and rubbed against her.
It is important to note that, according to the law writer, “he had a history of groping and harassing female employees and customers, and was occasionally—but only temporarily—banned from the premises.”
Herein is where the legal lines were drawn. The bank said it had no knowledge of the prior incidents whereas it seemed to have been common knowledge that he had a history of such behavior.
Why didn’t they ban the man? Charles Toutant wrote, “The suit claimed the bans of [the customer] were temporary, and bank management refused to close [his] accounts because he was an investor who could refer other business to the bank.”
When it was determined that despite the bank’s protestations, that assaults did occur and that there was indeed a cover-up of the customer’s prior harassment, the jury determined the bank was liable. The $2.4 million award included lost wages, future wages and emotional distress.
Despite Defense, “Neglect” Occurred
PNC, of course, came out with a crafted statement that it did not condone harassment”
“We have a long-standing history of providing a safe workplace for our employees, and robust policies and procedures to help ensure that we continue to do so. We are disappointed by the verdict, even though the jury expressly found that this was not a case where punitive damages were appropriate. We intend to appeal based on errors made by the court.”
While it was true that PNC had a sexual harassment training program, apparently the bank neglected to train bank employees in the Glen Ridge branch.
Though PNC Bank testified that former employees were annually trained, it did not extend to a situation where a known sexual predator could sexually harass at will.
For far too long, abusive customers (often coddled, perhaps just mildly chided) have been given free reign in exercising their abusive behaviors. In an effort to “keeping their customers happy,” retailers overlooked obvious sexual abuse and sexual harassment situations.
Abusive individuals, emboldened by a perceived immunity, have often harassed both female and male employees. These customers felt as though they had an “opportunity” to carry out their behaviors and took advantage of the powerless. Rather than a warning being issued to the offender, all too often it was minimalized or discounted entirely.
The rationalization of the abuser was frequently: “What can they do to me?”
The answer is that the law can do a lot. While employers may be hesitant to ban a customer from their establishment, this case should provide a strong case that inaction can lead to severe consequences.
Sexual harassment training is no longer an option; employers must understand that to NOT train can wind up shutting down or severely damage a business.
LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS!
