Sexual harassment case raises cultural questions

WINDOW ROCK

Could Navajos and bilagáanas have differing definitions of sexual harassment?

Window Rock District Court Judge Carol Perry on Friday alluded to that question after an attorney for Aramark Educational Services LLC argued that an Aramark employee’s actions — if in fact he took them — “did not rise to the level of sexual harassment.”

The discussion was part of a hearing on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Helena LaPlant v. Aramark and Franco Lee, filed in 2015.

Aramark was asking Perry to rule on the case without going to trial.

LaPlant, Lee’s sous chef at Diné College from 2013 to 2014, argues in the suit that during her employment Lee touched her breasts and buttocks, made lewd comments and told off-color stories, making her fearful and uncomfortable.

Ben Hufford, Aramark’s attorney, told the court, “That kind of conduct, while not the best conduct, takes place in the workplace.”

Hufford said that while Aramark does not condone such conduct, it was not “pervasive, frequent or regular” enough to meet the federal definition of sexual harassment.

He also said Aramark’s investigation into the allegations turned up no evidence of LaPlant’s claims.

Perry wondered if she and Hufford were in “parallel universes.”

“Looking at it strictly as a statutory matter, you may say it doesn’t exist,” she noted. “What if it exists but you don’t see it?”

Perry asked both attorneys to prepare court orders on the case within 30 days and she would decide which, if either, to sign.

---