XpertHR • September 28, 2015
Preventing employee harassment through investigations and lawsuits is one of the pillars of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's current enforcement strategy.
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP • August 07, 2015
The Marchuk v. Faruqi law firm sexual harassment case has been “amicably resolved.” Now, what will we gossip about?
Fisher & Phillips LLP • August 07, 2015
Employers have long understood that they face potential liability when an employee is sexually harassed by another employee and they do nothing to prevent or fix the known problem. It is also true, but perhaps less well known, that similar liability can result when employees are harassed by customers, patients, or other nonemployees. Ignorance of this potential liability can be costly, but you can minimize your risks by following a simple three-step plan.
XpertHR • August 03, 2015
Sexual harassment training has become a rite of passage for new supervisors in certain states. For example, for California employers, supervisors must attend training every two years. Various other states have sexual harassment prevention requirements for private and public employers.
Fisher & Phillips LLP • July 01, 2015
As the weather heats up, summertime romances are probably on the minds of many of your employees. According to the Society of Human Resource Management, as many as 40% of workers have had an office relationship at some point in their careers. Even though employees might view office romances as harmless, they can often lead to a host of legal issues for an employer. In order to keep the boardroom from turning into the War of the Roses, companies should consider implementing an official “love contract” policy.
Nexsen Pruet • June 25, 2015
Last month, in Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., No. 13-1473 (4th Cir. May 7, 2015), the federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which includes North and South Carolina, articulated a new standard for analyzing claims of hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII. For employers, the new standard may prove challenging in some respects but may also serve as a call to action.
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP • June 19, 2015
We have reached the fifth and final of our five harassment "must-haves": No retaliation.
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP • June 12, 2015
It’s the moment of truth! (Dum-dum-DUM!)
Ogletree Deakins • June 08, 2015
Part one of this two-part series discussed the first of two significant rulings issued by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in May of 2015. The first part focused on Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corporation, No. 13-473 (May 7, 2015), in which the Fourth Circuit overruled existing precedent and concluded that an isolated incident of harassment was severe enough to create a hostile work environment. Part two focuses on Foster v. University of Maryland-Eastern Shore, No. 14-1073 (May 21, 2015), in which the Fourth Circuit rejected an argument that the Supreme Court of the United States in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar intended to create a “heightened causation standard” for retaliation claims brought under the burden-shifting McDonnell Douglas framework.
Ogletree Deakins • June 04, 2015
In May 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over federal courts in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) issued two opinions with negative consequences for employers facing claims of hostile work environment or retaliation.