|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Employer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment When Its Corrective Measures Failed to Curtail Harassment.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 29, 2009 Reversing summary judgment in favor of the employer on an employee’ s racial and sexual harassment claims, the federal appeals court in Richmond has ruled that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission presented sufficient evidence of harassment, and of the employer’ s failure to remedy the alleged harassment, that the case should go to a jury. EEOC v. Central Wholesalers, Inc., No. 08-1181 (4th Cir. Jul. 21, 2009). The Court found that based on the facts construed most favorably to the plaintiff, as is appropriate in passing on summary judgment, a jury could conclude that the employer failed to respond in a timely manner to the employee’ s complaints with actions reasonably calculated to end the harassment. The employer’ s response, therefore, was “not sufficient … to warrant summary judgment.” Report Link Supervisors Without Authority to Affect Employment Status of Other Workers Are not “Managers” for Purpose of Title VII.Ogletree Deakins - June 25, 2009 The basis of an employer’s liability for a claim of hostile work environment under Title VII depends upon whether the harasser is the complainant’s supervisor or merely a co-worker. When a hostile work environment is created by a co-worker, the employer is liable only if the employer failed to provide an avenue for reporting the harassment, or if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment but failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action. Under Title VII, an employer “knew or should have known” about workplace harassment if “management level employees had actual or constructive knowledge about the existence of a sexually hostile environment.” Therefore, once a management level employee has enough information to raise the probability of sexual harassment in the mind of a reasonable employer, the employer is deemed to be on constructive notice of that harassment. Report Link Worker's Lack Of Response Dooms Harassment SuitOgletree Deakins - February 11, 2008 A federal appellate court recently dismissed a lawsuit brought by an employee who claimed that her employer subjected her to a hostile work environment. While the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct the alleged harassment, the court held, the employee failed to take advantage of the corrective opportunities offered by the employer. Brenneman v. Famous Dave's of America, Inc., No. 06-1851, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (November 16, 2007). Report Link Seventh Circuit Finds Employer's Harassment Complaint Procedures Insufficient.Ogletree Deakins - December 11, 2007 The federal appellate court with jurisdiction over Illinois employers recently reinstated a lawsuit brought against the owner of a fast food restaurant whose manager allegedly verbally and physically propositioned a 16-year-old employee. According to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the employee who was later fired by her manager because her mother complained about the harassment could proceed with her retaliation claim. The Seventh Circuit also held that the trial judge had improperly granted summary judgment to the employer on the harassment claim where the record reflected that the employer’s policies were both confusing and ineffective. Report Link Effective Harassment Complaint Procedures Must Be Understandable to the Workforce, Appeals Court Rules.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 26, 2007 Ruling that an employer's harassment complaint procedure was ineffective because it was not written in a way that could be easily understood by the teenage workers who comprised the bulk of the employer's workforce, a federal Court of Appeals in Chicago allows a 16-year-old restaurant worker's claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII to proceed to trial. Report Link Anti-Harassment Measures Help Avoid Liability.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - May 03, 2007 You return from vacation energized to complete the numerous projects sitting on your desk, only to find an employee standing in your doorway asking if she can speak with you about a confidential matter. In your gut, you know your day will be swallowed by what will likely follow from this conversation. The situation takes an uncomfortable turn when you realize the employee wants to lodge a complaint of sexual harassment about one of the company's supervisors. Report Link Employee Who Rejects Employer's Proposed Remedial Action Cannot Pursue Sexual Harassment Lawsuit.Ford & Harrison LLP - March 27, 2007 Having an effective policy againt harassment can help stem employee cliams, even where the company does not choose the remedial action the complaining employee requests. Report Link Casual workplace lands restaurant in the hot seat (pdf).Jones Walker - May 25, 2006 All employers want their employees to get along and feel comfortable while at work. But
when does casual become too casual? While there’s nothing wrong with being comfortable in the
workplace, an atmosphere that’s too relaxed sometimes can lead to behavior that pushes the
envelope. A recent federal court decision serves as a reminder of what can happen when
employees stop being professional and start being “real,” to paraphrase the show that gave
reality TV its start. We also offer a few tips on how to keep your workplace from functioning like
a reality show. Report Link An Ounce of Prevention: Employers Must Make Employees Aware of Workplace Harassment Policy (pdf).Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - May 19, 2006 A federal district court denied an
employer’s request for summary
judgment in a case where an
employee who alleged sexual
harassment did not report the alleged
harassment during her employment,
as required by Company policy. Report Link Employee's Sexual Harassment Claim Fails.Ogletree Deakins - May 11, 2006 The federal appellate court with
jurisdiction over Texas recently ruled
against an employee who complained
to her supervisor that she was being
harassed by a co-worker. According
to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,
the employee failed to follow the company’s
handbook which required the
employee to report the harassment to
human resources (HR) if a report to her
supervisor proved ineffective. Report Link Employers Victorious In Key Title VII Suit (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - February 27, 2006 The federal appellate court with jurisdiction
over New Jersey recently
dismissed a lawsuit brought by an employee
who complained about sexual
harassment and was later suspended
for herself violating the employer’s
harassment policy. The Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, in an unpublished
decision, held that the employee’s sexual
harassment claim must fail because
effective corrective measures
were taken to remedy the offensive conduct. Report Link The Title VII Affirmative Defense to Sexual Harassment Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - December 02, 2005 An employer's legal duty to promptly and thoroughly investigate any complaint of perceived discrimination, harassment, or retaliation is well-established. In fact, under Title VII, an employer may avoid liability for harassment that does not involve an adverse employment action (e.g., termination or demotion) if the employer can demonstrate: (1) it took reasonable steps to prevent and promptly correct sexual harassment in the workplace, and (2) the aggrieved employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the employer's preventive or corrective measures. Report Link Prompt action keeps employer from having its goose cooked (pdf).Jones Walker - November 10, 2005 As we sit and ponder what we’re all thankful for this year, at least one employer is giving
thanks to its incredible HR department and employment attorney. They developed and enforced a
sexual harassment policy that saved the company from getting sliced up in court like a
Thanksgiving turkey. See how that employer’s prompt and effective action turned the tables on
an employee and made her look like the turkey. Report Link Title VII Update: Court Validates Comprehensive Anti-Harassment Policy and "Swift and Effective" Response.Vedder Price - January 28, 2005 Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an
employer may be liable for sexual harassment by a
supervisor with authority over the victimized employee.
When no tangible employment action against the
employee is involved, the employer may raise an
affirmative defense to liability that (a) the employer
exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct
any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) the employee
unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive
or corrective opportunities provided by the employer. Report Link Take this job and shove it!Jones Walker - September 14, 2004 When country music star Johnny Paycheck sang those famous words, he wasn’t singing about an employee who quit her job after being sexually harassed at work, but they fit that scenario nevertheless. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, an employee who tells her employer to “take this job and shove it” because of alleged sexual harassment can recover for a claim of “constructive discharge” (i.e., things were so bad at work, I was forced to quit), but only if she can prove a supervisor’s “official” act is the final straw that caused her to quit. Although neither management nor employee rights advocates see this case as a victory, the Supreme Court’s decision helps clarify whether and how constructive discharge claims factor into supervisor harassment cases.
Report Link Supreme Court Recognizes Affirmative Defense in Sex Harassment Constructive Discharge Cases (pdf).Vedder Price - July 26, 2004 The Supreme Court recently held that an employee's failure to seek recourse under her employer’s nondiscrimination/non-harassment policy may bar a claim that she was forced to resign because of intolerable sexual harassment. Report Link Hostile Environment and Constructive Discharge: When the Employer is Strictly Liable.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - June 16, 2004 In a clarification of the application of the affirmative defense first made available in the Court's Ellerth and Faragher decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the affirmative defense is available to employers in some, but not all, cases of constructive discharge. Report Link Supreme Court Allows Ellerth/Faragher Affirmative Defense in Certain "Constructive Discharge" Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 16, 2004 In an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held June 14, 2004 that a claim of constructive discharge is not necessarily an "adverse action" which would always preclude the employer from asserting the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Report Link Seventh Circuit Narrowly Defines "Supervisor" and "Adverse Action" In Sex Harassment, Discrimination Cases.Jackson Lewis LLP - March 31, 2004 A recent decision from the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago) has narrowly defined who may be considered a supervisor in sexual harassment cases. Report Link THE CURRENT "HOW TO" OF HARRASMENT RISK MANAGEMENT.Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. - September 10, 2002 The federal courts, about every five years, indulge an irresistible urge to send attorneys and employers scurrying, and issue a decision or two redefining the parameters of employer liability and responsibility for sexual and other harassment in the workplace. Report Link Discipline Must Be Reasonably Calculated to End Harassment.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 01, 2002 The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal has ruled that continued misconduct by a supervisor after being disciplined, is actionable. Minnich v. Cooper Farms Inc. Report Link Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment For Employer On Employee's Gender Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment, And Retaliation Claims, Despite No Formal Harassment Policies.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - February 02, 2002 Discusses Hall v. Bodine Electric Company, 8 D.L.R. A-2 (7th Cir., January 11, 2002), in which the court held that the lack of a formal sexual harassment policy was not fatale to employer's defense ("we have never held that Title VII employers must institute formal sexual harassment policies. Instead, we have focused on whether an employer has a reasonable mechanism in place for detecting and correcting harassment.") Report Link Ninth Circuit Reverses $85,000 Jury Verdict.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - December 14, 2001 Discusses Swenson v. Potter, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12653 (9th Cir., November 30, 2001), in which the court reversed a jury award for harassment, holding that the employer responded adequately to the complaint by separating the complainant from the alleged harasser, and investigating the complaint promptly and thoroughly.
|
ArticlesFound: 23 ArticlesSUBTOPICS Employment Law Seminars
Top Tips to Protect Your Workplace From Violence
Webinar
November 10, 2009 HR Learning Center LLCWorkplace Change in the Obama EraColumbus
November 10, 2009 Littler2009 Employment Practices ConferenceUniversal City
November 10, 2009 Ballard RosenbergFall Employment Law Mini-SeriesTysons Corner
November 10, 2009 LittlerBusiness Continuity During the H1N1 OutbreakWebinar
November 10, 2009 Littler"Action Steps for Upcoming Open Enrollment" Free E-BriefingWebinar
November 10, 2009 Ford & HarrisonLabor and Employment Law SeminarLos Angeles
November 11, 2009 OgletreeHR Network 2009 | RestonReston
November 12, 2009 CooleyThe Labor & Employment Compliance Costs of Federal ContractingWebinar
November 12, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyLa Jolla
November 12, 2009 Fisher & Phillips |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds