126) The court also mentioned measures taken by ABMI to ensure that ABMK was complying with corporate policies prescribed by ABMI.
Applying the hostile workplace test set out above, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs' complaints to their supervisors were not enough to put ABMK on notice of the harassment, especially considering the effort that the corporation put into preventing such incidents.
147) The court concluded that, while "the evidence cannot be used to prove the timely plaintiffs found their workplace subjectively hostile, it is highly relevant to prove the sexual harassment was severe and pervasive and that ABMK had constructive notice.
149) In his opinion, the plaintiffs should have been required to show that ABMK knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action.
163) With this decision, the court allowed evidence of eighty-five complaints of similar treatment at the four hundred locations where ABMK provided janitorial services.
ABMI was able to get some of the original claims as to ABMK dismissed because the claims were filed more than ninety days after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued right-to-sue letters.
In the original complaint, ABMK was not named as a defendant.