Holding that for purposes of a Title VII retaliation claim, "an action is cognizable as an adverse employment action if it is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity"
Holding that where a supervisor makes sexual overtures to employees of both genders, or where the conduct is equally offensive to male and female workers, the conduct may be actionable under state law, but it is not actionable as harassment under Title VII because men and women are accorded like treatment
Holding that there is evidence of disability-based harassment when a supervisor hovers around an employee's work area, eavesdrops on her conversations, and intercepts her phone calls
Holding that a plaintiff presented evidence of "objectively severe and pervasive workplace harassment" under the ADA where the plaintiff had offered "a good deal of evidence that [his] supervisors ... in vulgar and profane language, constantly berated and harassed him and the other" workers with disabilities and that this harassment "occurred at least weekly"