Sommers Schwartz attorneys Tad Roumayah and Nathan Robbins filed a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit for a 31-year-old residential advisor employed by a government contractor operating a federally funded facility.
The plaintiff began work on July 7, 2025, for a company that provides housing, vocational training, and educational programs to teens and young adults. According to her supervisor, she performed her duties well and received no write-ups, warnings, or disciplinary action at any point during her employment.
Within days of starting, the plaintiff became the target of repeated sexual harassment by multiple male colleagues. On July 16, a female security guard informed her that male security guards had been making explicit comments about her body at the guard station. The plaintiff immediately reported this to her direct supervisor, who acknowledged the report but took no action. Two days later, while working an overnight shift in the male dormitories, a male coworker leered at her and made a sexually suggestive comment about her clothing. Her supervisor confirmed her attire was appropriate, photographed her outfit to document that fact, and told the plaintiff that the same employee had a history of harassing female employees. The employer did not discipline the male coworker.
The following day, a security guard abandoned his post without cause, entered a room where the plaintiff was working alone, stared at her for several minutes, told her she looked good, and warned her there were no cameras in the office. That same day, the plaintiff overheard a speakerphone call in which a colleague relayed an explicit and vulgar sexual comment the previously identified harasser had made about her. The harassers had also coined a degrading sexual nickname for the plaintiff, which spread through the staff and eventually reached the youth residents at the facility, who began addressing her by that name. On July 20, another male colleague sent her a sexually suggestive message through Facebook Messenger.
The plaintiff promptly reported each incident, escalating her complaints from her direct supervisor to the department manager. The manager texted on July 20 she was aware of the situation and that staff might need a “reminder” of the harassment policy, but it was never sent, and no harasser was disciplined.
When the plaintiff met with the department manager on August 1 to press for action, management’s only response was to reassign her to a different area of the facility. That reassignment placed her desk directly in view of the security guard station staffed by one of the men who had harassed her. After the reassignment, security guards began subjecting the plaintiff to invasive and unwarranted physical pat-downs when she entered the building each day, including touching her breasts and buttocks.
By mid-August 2025, the plaintiff’s anxiety about returning to work had become severe. She missed several days. When the HR manager called to ask about her absences, the plaintiff described the harassment in detail, and the HR manager claimed she had no knowledge of any prior complaints. Rather than investigate, the HR manager instructed the plaintiff to email a resignation letter and return her badge. The plaintiff refused to resign. The employer terminated her employment anyway and never contacted her again.
The lawsuit alleges the defendant created a hostile work environment, subjecting the plaintiff to sexual harassment and unlawful retaliation in violation of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and Title VII of the U.S. Code. The plaintiff seeks damages for lost past and future wages and benefits, mental and emotional distress, loss of professional reputation, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Our attorneys have been featured on local and national media outlets, including:
