IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT : 

 : 

 V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 

 : 

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER NO. 02 -cv-4421 

OF COMMERCE, INC.; JOHN J.(BUD) : 

AIKEN, AND MICKEY GLANTZ : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR BINDING INSTRUCTIONS

AND PROPOSED POINTS FOR JURY CHARGE

1. Directed Verdict 

 I instruct you that under the law and the Pennsylvania Constitution as it applies in this 

case, you must return a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Dolores (Dee) Barrett and against Defendants 

John (Bud) Aiken, Mickey Glantz, and The Greater Hatboro Chamber of Commerce. 

2. Directed Verdict 

I instruct you that based on the evidence presented in this case, you must return a verdict 

in favor of Plaintiff Dolores (Dee) Barrett and against Defendants John (Bud) Aiken and Mickey 

Glants, and The Greater Hatboro Chamber of Commerce. 

Plaintiff attaches hereto her proposed Jury Instructions, reserving the right to supplement same 

at conclusion of the evidence in this case prior to submitting the case to the Jury. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 _____________________________ 

 Anita F. Alberts Esquire ID #28086 

 The Atrium Suite 2 West 

 301 S. Main Street 

 Doylestown PA 18901 

 (215) 340-0700; FAX (215) 340-2747 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 1 of 28
The "Reasonable Woman" Standard 

 3. If you find from Dee Barrett's evidence at trial that she has proven (1) Dee Barrett 

suffered intentional discrimination at work because of her gender; (2) the discrimination was 

pervasive and regular; (3) the discrimination adversely affected he; (4) the discrimination would 

adversely or detrimentally affect a reasonable person of the same sex in that position; and (5) 

management knew or should have known of the discrimination and failed to correct it; 

 Then you must find that the Hatboro Chamber of Commerce permitted and maintained a 

hostile work environment as to Dee Barrett and must find in her favor and against Defendants on 

this issue. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 2 of 28
Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F. 2d 1469 (3d Cir. 1990) 

The Pennsylvania Constitution Equal Rights Amendment 

 4. Article I Section 28 of the Pennsylvania Constitution is known as the Pennsylvania 

Equal Rights Amendment, and it provides: 

 "EQUALITY OF RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW SHALL NOT BE DENIED OR 

ABRIDGED IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA BECAUSE OF THE SEX 

OF THE INDIVIDUAL." 

 If you find that Dee Barrett's right to work without harassment was denied to her because 

of her sex, female, or that her job was taken from her because she refused to continue to put up 

with hostile sexual harassment, then you must find in her favor and against Defendants Hatboro 

Chamber of Commerce, John Aiken and Mickey Glantz. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 3 of 28
Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I Section 28 

Right of Action Under the PERA 

 5. A private right of action is available for cases of gender discrimination under the 

Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment, the ERA. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 4 of 28
Pfeiffer v. Marion Center Area School District, 917 F. 2d 779 ( 3d Cir. 1990) 

Kemether v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Assn. Inc., 15 F. Supp.2d 740 (E.D. Pa. 1998) 

State Constitutional Protection of Rights 

 6. The Pennsylvania Constitution provides more protection of individual rights than does 

the Federal Constitution; Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights needs no affirmative legislation 

for enforcement of its Constitutional provisions. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 5 of 28
Spayd v. Ringing Rock Lodge, 270 Pa. 67, 113 A. 70 (Pa. 1921) 

Erdman v. Mitchell, 207 Pa. 79, 56 A. 327 (1903), cited in 

Jones v. City of Philadelphia, 68 Pa. D. & C. 4th 47 (Phila. 2004) 

Sexual Harassment Defined 

 7. If you find that Dee Barrett's workplace was permeated with harassment, ridicule, and 

insult such that it altered the conditions of her employment and created a hostile or abusive work 

environment, you must find in favor of Plaintiff and against all Defendants, for sexual 

harassment is not limited to economic discrimination. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 6 of 28
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Inc., 523 U. S. 75, 118 S. Ct. 998, 1001 (1998) 

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775, 118 S. Ct. 2275, 2283 (1998) 

Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., 510 U. S. 17, 21, 114 S. Ct. 376 (1993) 

Harassment Based on Sex 

 8. In determining whether the harassment suffered by Dee Barrett was because of her sex, 

you need not find that the harassing conduct was motivated by sexual desire. Sexual harassment 

can include non-sexual actions directed to interfering with a person's work because of her 

gender. An example of this would be for a company such as Greater Hatboro Chamber of 

Commerce to take away Dee Barrett's job as Executive Director, and allow her harasser to 

replace her, John (Bud) Aiken, but to call him a CEO, after she had done the job of Executive 

Director for ten years. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 7 of 28
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Inc., 523 U. S. 75, 80 (1998); 

O'Rourke v. City of Providence, 235 F. 3d 713 (1st Cir. 2001) 

Severity or Pervasiveness of Harassment 

 9. If you find that Dee Barrett was subjected to a series of episodes of harassment over a 

period of time, you may find that she was subjected to pervasive harassment. The more severe 

an incident or incidents of harassment are, the less pervasive it needs to be. One episode of 

harassment, if sufficiently severely, can create a hostile environment. If you find Dee Barrett's 

testimony of the final incident when Bud Aiken exposed his erect penis to her and asked her if 

she wanted sex credible, you may find that there was a hostile work environment for Dee Barrett 

at the Hatboro Chamber of Commerce. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 8 of 28
Durhan Life Ins Co. v. Evans, 166 F. 3d 139, 149 (3d Cir. 1999); West v. City of Philadelphia,

45 F. 3d 744, 756 (3d Cir. 1995); Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., 510 U. S. 17, 117 S. Ct. 376 

(1998) 

Willfully False Testimony 

 10. If you decide that a witness has deliberately falsified his testimony on a significant 

point, you should take this into consideration in deciding whether or not to believe the rest of his 

testimony; and you may refuse to believe the rest of his testimony but are not required to do so. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 9 of 28
Standard Pennsylvania Civil Jury Instruction 5.05 

Sexual Harassment Defined 

 11. This case claims sexual harassment by maintenance of a sexually hostile atmosphere 

in the workplace, and also by "quid pro quo" harassment, in that John (Bud) Aiken, while he was 

Plaintiff's supervisor, and a member of the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, or 

President of the Board, expected Dee Barrett to show him "appreciation" in the form of sexual 

favors in return for his friendship and help in getting the Board to give her a raise, and if you find 

this conduct along with the verbal sexual harassment by Mickey Glantz, was sufficiently severe 

or pervasive to alter the conditions of Mrs. Barrett's employment, then you must find in favor of 

Plaintiff and you may award her money damages for the sexual harassment she endured during 

her 10 years of employment with the Chamber of Commerce. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 10 of 28
Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57 (1986) 

Hall v. Gus Construction Co., 842 F. 2d 1010 (8th Cir. 1998) 

Respondeat Superior 

 12. If evidence shows that management-level persons (such as Mickey Glantz and Bud 

Aiken) had actual knowledge about the existence of a sexually hostile atmosphere, or 

participated in demeaning or harassing Dee Barrett themselves, and failed to take prompt and 

effective remedial action to stop the harassment when she complained, then you must find in 

favor of Dee Barrett and against the Hatboro Chamber of Commerce as well as against Mr. 

Aiken and Mr. Glantz, and you must hold the employer liable for hostile environment sexual 

harassment. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 11 of 28
Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742 (1998); Katz v. Dole, 709 F. 2d at 255 (4th Cir. 

1983); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 779, 799 (1998). 

Employer Knowledge 

 13. When harassment takes place during work hours at the place of employment, and is 

carried out by someone with the authority to supervise the victim or with authority to promote or 

discipline her, the knowledge of the harassment is imputed to the employer. This is particularly 

true when the harasser was a supervisor and a member -- and at times President -- of the Boards 

of Directors, such as John (Bud) Aiken and Mickey Glantz. The Chamber of Commerce, the 

employer, is STRICLY LIABLE for sexual harassment and constrictive discharge by upper 

management. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 12 of 28
Burlington Industries V. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742 (1998); 

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2196 (1998); 

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57, 106 S. Ct. 2399 (1986); 

Yates v. Avco Corp. 819 F. 2d 630 (6th Cir. 1987) 

Damages - General 

 14. A person who is a victim of illegal discrimination is entitled to be restored to the 

position she would have been in but for the discrimination, and to receive compensation for her 

injuries, including all lost money and job benefits and emotional harm she suffered. If you find 

that Mrs. Barrett was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment, or that she was forced to 

resign from her position at the Hatboro Chamber of Commerce, she is entitled to damages in this 

case. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 13 of 28
Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U. S. 549, 558 (1998); 

Maxfield v. Sinclair International Corp., 766 F. 2d 788 (3d Cir. 1985) cert. denied 106 S. Ct. 

796 (1986). 

Gender Discrimination and Constructive Discharge 

 15. If you find from the evidence that Dee Barrett was treated differently in the terms and 

conditions of her employment than she would have been, had she been a man, for instance in her 

job loss by being replaced by her chief harasser, John (Bud) Aiken, and by the Chamber's refusal 

to provide health insurance benefits for her when Aiken received full benefits and a full time 

secretary when he took her job, and if you find that Dee Barrett was involuntarily discharged 

after rejecting a "choice" between working at half pay and involuntary discharge, then you must 

find in her favor and against all defendants for discrimination and discharge and you may award 

her money damages for the earnings she has lost and the emotional distress she suffered by 

reason of being unable to find comparable work in the community she loved, and having to 

relocate to New Jersey in order to find comparable employment. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 14 of 28
Levendos v. Stern Entertainment Inc., 909 F. 2d 747 (3d Cir. 1990) 

Backpay - Mitigation 

 16. If you find that Dee Barrett was constructively discharged then you must determine 

the amount of back pay she is entitled to receive. The purpose of back pay is to make the person 

whole for any wages and benefits lost as a result of the constructive discharge. Back pay is the 

amount of money Mrs. Barrett would have earned from the date of discharge until she found 

replacement employment earning as much or more money, plus expenses incurred in her job 

search and relocation. In calculating back pay and benefits to which Mrs. Barrett is entitled, 

absolute precision is not required and any uncertainties in determining the amount should be 

resolved against the employer. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 15 of 28
Goss v. Exxon Office Systems Co., 747 F. 2d 885, 889 (3d Cir. 1984); 

Booker v Taylor Milk Co., 64 F. 3d 860, 864 (3d Cir. 1995); 

Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., 510 U. S. 17, 117 S. Ct. 376 (1993) 

Compensatory Damages 

 17. If you find that Defendant(s) are liable to Plaintiff under Article 1 §28 of the 

Pennsylvania Constitution, the Equal Rights Amendment, Mrs. Barrett is entitled to recover 

damages in an amount which will reasonably compensate her for the loss and injury suffered as a 

result of Defendants' unlawful conduct. You may award compensation for the following: pain, 

suffering, physical or emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation, mental anguish, and 

loss of enjoyment of life's pleasures, such as living and working among friends in the community 

she loved. You may consider the testimony of Dee Barrett, and of her family members in 

determining a fair allowance for these damages. Emotional harm may manifest itself in anxiety, 

stress, depression, marital strain, embarrassment, loss of respect in her community, emotional 

distress or loss of self-esteem. 

 In deciding the amount of the award you should take into account the nature, character, 

and seriousness of any emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish, or loss of enjoyment of life 

that Dee Barrett experienced. You must also consider the duration, as any award you make must 

cover the damages endured by her since the wrongdoing to the resent time, and into the future. 

No exact standard exists for determining the compensation to be awarded for these injuries. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 16 of 28
Bolden v. SEPTA, 21 F. 3d 29 (3d Cir. 1994) 

Retaliation Claim 

 18. Mrs. Barrett claims she was the victim of retaliation for refusing to continue to endure 

the verbal sexual abuse of Mickey Glantz and submit to the ongoing sexual requests culminating 

in Aiken's indecent exposure of his erect penis in the workplace. She made written complaints 

of harassment before the last, most serious and shocking incident, but fought back against Aiken 

by yelling epithets at him, throwing him out of the office and refusing to let him come back. 

After months had passed Aiken apologized to her, acknowledged his behavior and said she did 

not deserve to be mistreated as he had done; he pleaded to renew their friendship. While doing 

this and unbeknown to Mrs. Barrett, Aiken was scheming to take her job for himself, and Glantz 

was supporting Aiken's efforts. Their scheme worked, and violates laws against discrimination 

and the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment in particular, which prohibits retaliation for 

engaging in protected activity to safeguard her right to work without mistreatment based on 

gender. Her internal complaints satisfy the requirement of engaging in protected activity. If you 

find Mrs. Barrett was discriminated against by the Hatboro Chamber of Commerce you may find 

she has established the first element of a claim of retaliation. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 17 of 28
Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F. 3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir. 1996) 

Retaliation - Adverse Employment Action 

 19. Harassment can constitute an adverse employment action. If you find Mrs. Barrett 

was the subject of unwelcome behavior that was sufficiently severe that it resulted in a materially 

adverse change in her employment -- in this case, being forced out of her job, when was then 

given to her harasser, Aiken, then Plaintiff has proven the second element of her claim of 

retaliation. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 18 of 28
Richardson v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, 180 F. 3d 426, 446 (2d Cir. 1999); 

Morris v. Oldham County Fiscal Court, 201 F. 3d 784 (6th Cir. 2000); 

White v. N.H. Dept. of Corrections, 221 F. 3d 254 (1st Cir. 2000). 

Burden of Plaintiff 

 20. Mrs. Barrett has the burden of establishing that it is more likely than not that 

retaliation for her complaints of gender discrimination or that her gender itself was a determining 

factor in the harassment and constructive discharge she was subjected to. It is for the jury to 

determine, based on all the ev9idence, that it is more likely than not that the harassment Mrs. 

Barrett was subjected to or Defendant's decision to remove her from her position was motivated 

by her complaints of gender discrimination. If you find that Mrs. Barrett was not harassed or 

constructively discharged in retaliation for her having complained and having rejecting Aiken's 

advances and Glantz's abusive behavior, then you must find in favor of the Hatboro Chamber of 

Commerce on her claim of retaliation. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 19 of 28
Carey v. Mt. Desert Island Hospital, 1998 U. S. App. LEXIS 21290 (1st Cir. 1998). 

Wage Loss is not Part of Compensatory Damages 

 21. Wage loss, including backpay, frontpay, and benefits, is not a component of 

compensatory damages, but is awarded in addition to compensatory damages awarded for 

emotional distress and pain and suffering. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 20 of 28
Pollard v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 532 U. S. 843 (2001) 

Determinative Factor 

 22. The question for you, the jury, is whether Mrs. Barrett's complaints of gender 

discrimination and harassment were a determinative factor in the harassment and removal of 

Mrs. Barrett from her job as executive director, to be replaced by her harasser, Aiken, done by 

her employer, the Hatboro Chamber of Commerce. She need not prove her complaints of 

discrimination or harassment itself were the sole factor motivating the corporate Defendant. 

However, Mrs. Barrett must prove that she would not have been harassed or had her job taken 

from her if the fact that she complained of discrimination or harassment or that she is a woman 

had not been taken into account. 

 You are not able to decide whether you agree or disagree with the Hatboro Chamber of 

Commerce's actions. You are to decide whether Mrs. Barrett's complaint of discrimination or 

her gender was a determinative factor in the Chamber's actions against her. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 21 of 28
Hook v. Ernst and Young, 28 F. 3d 366, 369-70 (3d Cir. 1994) 

Stereotypical Thinking 

 23. Also, the law recognizes that unlawful discrimination sometimes is committed 

without having been planned, thought out, or acknowledged by the decision maker to himself or 

herself. That is, the law takes into account the effects of society's stereotypes on employers in 

ther decision making, and that biased decision making based upon those stereotypes can violate 

the law, even if the decision maker is unaware of bias in his thinking. This is because the law's 

purpose is to eradicate discrimination in all forms, regardless of the personal character of the 

individuals making discriminatory decisions. 

 Therefore, if you find from all the surrounding circumstances that Mickey Glantz, John 

Aiken and the Hatboro Chamber of Commerce treated Mrs. Barrett differently because of her 

complaint of discrimination or her gender, even if the Chamber of Commerce does not 

acknowledge or realize the motives of their officers, you must find in favor of Mrs. Barrett. 

Bennett v. Veterans' Administration Medical Center, 721 F. Supp. 723 (E. D. Pa. 1989); 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 22 of 28
Easley v. Northern Shipping Co., 597 F. Supp. 954 (E. D. Pa. 1984); 

Ostapowicz v. Johnson Bronze, 369 F. Supp. 522 (W. D. Pa., 1973) affirmed 541 F. 2d 394, cert. 

denied, 429 U. S. 1041 (1977); Walter v. Cowin Equpt. Co., 741 F. Supp. 1343 (N. D. Ala. 1972) 

Back Pay Not Reduced by Taxes 

 

 24. You must not deduct from Mrs. Barrett's backpay the taxes she would have had to 

pay on her salary if she had not been terminated, since Mrs. Barrett will be required to pay taxes 

on the amount you award her for backpay. Otherwise she will have effectively been taxed twice 

on that back pay. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 23 of 28
EEOC v. Kentucky State Police Dept., 80 F. 3d 1086, 1100 (6th Cir. 1996) 

Defendant's Burden to Prove Plaintiff Failed to Mitigate 

 25. The Hatboro Chamber of Commerce has the burden of proving that Mrs. Barrett did 

not minimize, or mitigate, her damages. In order to prove that Mrs. Barrett failed to mitigate her 

damages, the Chamber must establish: (1) that there were comparable and suitable positions 

available that she could have discovered and for which she was qualified; (2) that Mrs. Barrett 

failed to use reasonable diligence in seeking suck positions. 

 The Chamber of Commerce's burden is not satisfied by showing that there were further 

actions which Mrs. Barrett could have taken in pursuit of employment. Rather, the Chamber 

must show that the course of conduct Mrs. Barrett actually followed was so deficient as to 

constitute an unreasonable failure to seek employment. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 24 of 28
Datley v. Societe Generale, 915 F. Supp. 1315, 1321 (S. D. NY 1996) aff'd in pertinent part, 108 

F. 3d 451 (2d Cir. 1997). 

Punitive Damages 

 26. If you fid that the conduct of one or all of the defendants was outrageous, you may 

award punitive damages, as well as any compensatory damages, in order to punish the defendant 

for his (or it's) outrageous conduct, and to deter the defendant and others from the commission of 

like actions and conduct against women employees in the future. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 25 of 28
Restatement of Torts, §908(1). Chambers v. Montgomery, 411 Pa. 339, 192 A. 2d 355 (1963); 

Pa. Standard Instructions (Civ.) 14.00; Kolstad v. American Dental Assn., 527 U. S. 526 (1999). 

Mendacity 

 27. Withholding of information, such as was done by Mickey Glantz, John Aiken and the 

Chamber in the months before Mrs. Barrett was removed from her job, is evidence of mendacity, 

an actor's state of mind to deceive and punish, and mendacity can support an award of punitive 

damages. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 26 of 28
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U. S. 502 (1993); Kolstad v. American Dental Assn.,

527 U. S. 526 (1999). 

Amount of Punitive Damages 

 28. In determining the amount of punitive damages, should you decide to include this 

item in your verdict, you may in your good discretion consider the nature of the defendant's 

misconduct, the extent of its effect on the lives of Dolores Barrett and others, the likelihood of 

future recurrence of such misconduct, the relationship between the parties, the relative wealth of 

the defendant against whom you award punitive damages, and all circumstances surrounding the 

misconduct. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 27 of 28
DiTeodoro v. J. G. Durand International, 566 F. Supp. 273 (E. D. Pa. 1983). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT : 

 : 

 V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 

 : 

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER NO. 02 -cv-4421 

OF COMMERCE, INC.; JOHN J.(BUD) : 

AIKEN, AND MICKEY GLANTZ : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

ANITA F. ALBERTS ESQUIRE hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's 

Request for Binding Instructions and Proposed Jury Instructions was served to counsel for 

defendants at the address below by First Class Mail, on the date written below. 

 Sidney L. Gold Esquire 

 Sidney L. Gold Associates 

 Eleven Penn Center 

 1835 Market St. Suite 515 

 Philadelphia PA 19103 

____________________(date) _____________________________ 

 Anita F. Alberts Esquire 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 55 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 28 of 28