The Fifth District decided on August 9, 2011 that the trial court erred in not allowing the jury to hear "me too" evidence, or evidence of sexual harassment directed at employees other than the plaintff, in a sexual harassment case. The court explained, "Pantoja argues that the court erred when it ruled ... that evidence of sexual harassment by Anton of other employees was admissible only if it took place in Pantoja’s presence or otherwise affected her working environment. We agree that it was error for the court not to admit this evidence." The court went on to state, "Evidence that Anton harassed other women outside Pantoja’s presence could have assisted the jury not by showing that Anton had a propensity to harass women sexually, but by showing that he harbored a discriminatory intent or bias based on gender."
This is a great decision for plaintiffs in sexual harassment cases. Read the complete case here:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15225113846578061256&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr