Miguel Cotto Punched With a Sexual Harassment Case
Thursday, December 10th, 2009After taking a beating from Manny Pacquiao, boxing luminary Miguel Cotto has taken a legal blow after Martha Chacon Acevedo, a former employee, has sued him for sexual harassment.
In the suit filed in U.S. district court in San Juan last Aug. 24, the woman claimed that the former boxing champion made unwanted sexual and romantic advances towards her while she worked as an administrator in a residential property owned by Cotto in Puerto Rico.
She alleged that he offered her money and other benefits such as lingerie, lotions and body creams, champagne, and supposedly pornographic DVDs which turned out to be “Sex and the City” and “Nip/Tuck”.
According to her lawsuit, the woman consented to have sexual relations with Cotto for fear of losing her job. Acevedo further claimed that when she reported the sexual harassment to Cotto’s father, he condoned his son’s actions and told her to give in. But she allegedly got fired in October 2008, when she broke off the relationship.
She is now seeking worth more than $500,000 in damages. Cotto’s camp however, has derided the sexual harassment claim and said it was a total fabrication.
Sexual harassment, whether committed against a female or male employee is against the law. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in particular, defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Offensive remarks about a person’s sex can also be considered sexual harassment.
Whether the sexual harassment is Quid Pro Quo (“something for something” or a job benefit in return for sexual favor) or it is a hostile environment sexual harassment, can file a case of sexual harassment against the employer if the employer still persists in making unwanted sexual advances or retaliates against the employee for refusing to grant sexual favors.
Employees who are a victims of sexual harassment, may also course their complaints through the EEOC within 180 days from the commission of the offense.






