Claim of sexual harrasment, is it possible without evidence?

[UCFbuslaw]

What is the name of your state? Florida

Ok, heres the story. My friend is being threatened by another person of the opposite sex that is claiming that many years ago (around 25 years ago), he touched her inappropriatly. She is saying that she will sue him for this harrassment. Now I fully believe my friend when he says that he did not touch her and that she is just trying to get money from him. Since there is no evidence or proof of this event, can she sue? I have taken business law and can't remember anything from that class that will answer this question. Can you help?

 

[AL HR]

Did they work together? Are they still working together?

Wait, 25 years ago? I would think both civil and criminal recourse would have passed the SOL.

 

[UCFbuslaw]

No they were friends, what is SOL?

 

[racer72]

Without checking the specific statute for Florida, many states do not have an SOL for sexual assault. That is the reason many Catholic priests are now getting busted for assaulting young boys many years ago. SOL is statute of limitations. Till there is some sort of legal action, either civil or criminal, there is not much your friend can do.

 

[UCFbuslaw]

If its his word against hers then how in the world can she win? That means anyone could claim sexual harrassment against anyone and have a valid case?

 

[fairisfair]

If its his word against hers then how in the world can she win? That means anyone could claim sexual harrassment against anyone and have a valid case?

Just because they might have a case does not mean they would win

Of course she can sue. Anyone can sue anyone for almost anything. Again see above

 

[UCFbuslaw]

So how could she win? Isn't our country under the rule of innocent until PROVEN guily? So unless she has evidence, there is no possible chance so can win, correct?

 

[racer72]

So how could she win? Isn't our country under the rule of innocent until PROVEN guily? So unless she has evidence, there is no possible chance so can win, correct?

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to criminal case, not civil cases. Also, the standards for finding one liable in a civil case are much lower than in a criminal case. An example is the OJ Simpson case. Found not guilty in criminal court but found financially liable in a civil court. Plus in a civil case, she only has to convince one person (the judge) or a majority if the case is heard by a jury. At this point and with a significant lack of information, the odds are 50-50 of being found liable in a civil case. His odds are a bit better in a criminal case.

 

[lizjimbo]

Tort Reform

Your friends case is a screaming example of why this country desparately needs tort reform-anyone can sue anyone for any reason, win or not, there needs to be an aggravation fee placed on the looser of any tort.