This week, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision affirming that the severe or pervasive standard remains the test for assessing claims of sexual harassment under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). In doing so, the court rejected efforts by the plaintiff’s bar to modify the standard in
Articles Discussing Sexual Harassment Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Despite the heightened attention to avoiding and addressing sexual harassment claims in the wake of the #MeToo movement, retaliation remains the most-frequently filed employment law claim according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s FY 2019 Enforcement and Litigation Data. The agency received 39,110 retaliation charges in FY 2019 or 53.8%
On January 28, 2020, the Southern District of New York allowed a hostile work environment claim to proceed based upon allegations of racial slurs, demeaning comments, and relegation of Hispanic to the least favorable job assignments and shifts. Ramirez v. NYP Holdings, Inc. The Court permitted this claim to proceed
Goldberg Segalla’s Jonathan Schwartz welcomes Eric Marler and Carrie Graziani of Hanover Insurance Group for a discussion of the Me Too movement, potential directors and officers’ liability, and its effect on corporate culture and risk management. Eric and Carrie focus on the legal issues surrounding sexual harassment at the executive
A Georgia EMT sued her former employer, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Plaintiff alleged that sexual comments during the four months created a hostile environment. The comments included an owner calling Plaintiff attractive, saying he loved chocolate milk in apparent reference to her in a
As fiscal year 2019 ends for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), it has announced it is pursuing several new discrimination suits, including one alleging a casino failed to protect female staffers from sexual harassment by patrons.
The healthcare setting involves many potential “joint employer” landmines, as hospitals often have outside vendors providing services (i.e. food service, laundry service) inside their facilities.
As workplace laws continue to evolve, the potential risk exposure is increasing. Jackson Lewis prepared this trends overview to help assess the current workplace law landscape in the #MeToo era and the wave of agency charges, latest claims, and new laws.
Much has been written lately about the #MeToo movement and its presence in workplaces as diverse as universities, movie and TV studios. Hospitals are no exception. Savvy employers know that hospitals—large facilities that employ people of all educational backgrounds, races, religions, sexual orientations, ages, and more—can be ground zero for sexual harassment at any time.
Before “#MeToo” became a movement, it was a well-known, damaging type of evidence to employers litigating discrimination claims. “Me too” in the employment litigation context refers to evidence that employees other than the plaintiff also were also discriminated against. Employers had traditionally sought, with mixed results, to exclude such evidence as improper character evidence under FRE 404(b) or as substantially more prejudicial than probative under FRE 403. Debate raged over admissibility. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court tackled the issue and held that “me too” evidence is not per se admissible or inadmissible. See Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 388 (2008). Rather, the Court found, admissibility depends on a fact-intensive inquiry.
Employers have little control over employees’ bad, impulsive decisions. However, employers have full control over how they respond to a complaint of harassment. Any employer can ensure it investigates an allegation of harassment. Failure to do so can be costly.
Employers may be liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for failing to effectively address and stop gossip and rumors of an alleged sexual relationship between a female employee and a male supervisor, the federal appeals court in Richmond has held. Parker v. Reema Consulting Servs., No. 18-1206 (4th Cir. Feb. 8, 2019).
Dear Littler: I run HR for a business with locations across the West Coast. One of our store managers, Romeo, called today to inform me that he is now dating the assistant manager, Juliet, at his location in Los Angeles. I hate to crush young love, but this relationship seems wildly inappropriate. How do I handle this uncomfortable situation?
Speakers at the 2019 American Health Lawyers Association’s Physicians and Hospitals Law Institute repeatedly emphasized the importance of a coordinated approach to preventing harassment in hospitals.
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), the ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions – the committee with oversight of federal anti-discrimination law – has released recommendations for legislative action to combat unlawful workplace harassment. While most of these recommendations are unlikely to see legislative action in the next Congress, they clearly lay out a blueprint of where Senate Democrats (and House Democrats, who will hold the majority in the lower chamber of Congress come January) are likely to focus attention on issues relating to workplace harassment and the continued #MeToo movement.