join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Jan. 28 at Faruqi sex harassment trial: The defense rests.

The defense completed its case yesterday at the trial of Alexandra Marchuk’s sexual harassment claims against the New York City law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi and partner Juan Monteverde. Prior coverage of the trial is available here, here, here, and here.

Jan. 27 at Faruqi trial: No “spoliation” of blood-stained carpet, judge says

January 27 at the Marchuk v. Faruqi sexual harassment trial: Judge Alvin Hellerstein has denied Alexandra Marchuk’s request for an adverse inference instruction based on Faruqi’s destruction of the alleged blood-stained carpet in Juan Monteverde’s office. Judge Hellerstein noted that Ms. Marchuk admitted in her trial testimony that she asked Mr. Monteverde to hide the stains. (The law firm denies that the stains were blood at all.)

Jan. 26 at the Faruqi sex harassment trial: NSFW!

NOTE: Thanks to an attorney reader, who suggested last week that I put my Faruqi trial updates in separate posts to make it easier for people to find them on Google and other search engines. I thought that was a good idea, so I’ll do that with my remaining posts. (Testimony is supposed to wrap up this week, and possibly today.) Prior coverage is available here and here.

Two big sexual harassment cases: where the employers went wrong

As an employer, what can you do to protect yourself when one employee claims severe sexual harassment and the other party denies it or claims it was all consensual?

Supreme Court Will Hear Same-Sex Marriage Issue

Executive Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in four same-sex marriage cases in April, potentially settling the divisive issue by the end of the current term. The justices will consider an appeal from the 6th Circuit decision that upheld state same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Arguments are limited to the following two questions: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Two thoughts on the Faruqi sexual harassment trial

I hope that everyone is following the Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi sexual harassment trial that is taking place as we speak in Manhattan. If you haven’t been, then now is the time to start!

"Super" Anti-Harassment Policy May Create Unanticipated Liability

Ordinarily, employers think of anti-harassment policies as a means of defending themselves against harassment claims rather than a source of liability. However, a recent decision from a U.S. District Court in Connecticut serves as a reminder that written policies can create binding obligations for employers under certain circumstances.

3 Tips for Harassment Investigations

Investigating complaints of inappropriate workplace conduct is a difficult challenge for any number of reasons. But conducting an immediate and thorough investigation is critical to both preventing lawsuits and to avoiding liability should a lawsuit arise. Human-resource professionals often ask for tips in handling this challenge. Here are three.

The “Dirty Dozen”: Top 12 employer harassment mistakes

According to statistics collected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, harassment charges have stayed relatively stable over the past three years, and the number of “cause” determinations has actually declined. (Yay!)

Employers Can Be Liable for Non-Supervisors Who Malign an Employee’s Job Performance

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (“First Circuit”) recently held an employer could be liable for sex discrimination under Title VII where an employee’s job performance is maligned by a co-worker. The co-worker’s romantic overtures were rebuffed by the employee, the co-worker had intended to cause the employee’s termination, and the employer knew or should have known of the discriminatory motivation.