Retaliation and harassment are the most commonly filed employment law claims nationwide. After the Fourth Circuitβs recent decision in Boyer-Liberto v. Fountainbleau Corp., No. 13-1473 (4th Cir. May 7, 2015) lawsuits alleging hostile work environment and harassment will only be more difficult for employers to dispose of. The Fourth Circuit held that a single instance of harassment may create an actionable hostile work environment claim, and that an employee can be protected from retaliation when complaining about harassment, even if the purported harassment is ultimately not severe enough to create a hostile work environment.
Articles Discussing Sexual Harassment Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation Claims Harder to Defend After Fourth Circuit Ruling
Last weekβs decision by the Fourth Circuit in Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., No. 13-1473 (4th Cir., May 7, 2015) now means that in the Fourth Circuit, a single instance of harassment may create an actionable hostile work environment claim, and that an employee can be protected from retaliation when complaining about harassment, even if the purported harassment is ultimately not severe enough to create a hostile work environment. The Fourth Circuitβs decision to overturn summary judgment in favor of the defendant-employer signals an uphill battle for employersβ attempting to obtain summary judgment on matters where hostile work environment is alleged. The standard for a viable hostile work environment or harassment claim under Title VII is that the conduct at issue is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the plaintiffβs terms and conditions of employment, thus resulting in an abusive environment. Single incidents, stray comments, or isolated utterances have long been held insufficient to meet the standard. The Fourth Circuit deviated from this standard when it found that an isolated racial slur by a supervisor was sufficient, by itself, to allow both a hostile work environment and retaliation claim to proceed to trial.
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?
Danger Ahead: Employer Liability For Third-Party Harassment
On April 29, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that employers can be liable for third-party harassment under a negligence standard. In doing so, the court joined other circuits in establishing that employers can be liable under Title VII for third parties that create a hostile work environment, provided the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action to end it.
Fourth Circuit Holds Employer Liable for Third-Party Racial and Sexual Harassment
In its first published opinion on the topic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently ruled in Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp. that an employer is liable for harassment by a third party when the employer knows or reasonably should have known about the harassment and fails to take prompt, remedial action reasonably calculated to end the harassment.
Third-Party Harassment Could Lead To Employer Liability
Most employers understand the significant consequences of sexual harassment at the workplace and take proactive measures to train employees about proper conduct. However, liability is not limited to the conduct of employees. Employers also have a responsibility to prevent sexual harassment by third parties such as clients, vendors, patients, and customers, when the employer knows about the conduct and fails to take any corrective action. Although third-party harassment is reportedly just as common, many employers do not take appropriate steps to prevent it.
Court Rules Unpaid Interns May Not Sue For Sexual Harassment Under NYC Civil Rights Statutes
The topic of unpaid interns has generated a lot of buzz in the employment law world after a flurry of recent lawsuits in which interns sought repayment under the Fair Labor Standards Act. (Our Professional Liability Matters blog discussed the issue in posts on June 25 and July 9.) However, an October 3 decision from the Southern District of New York has taken the topic into a new direction: sexual harassment. The result? The court ruled that unpaid interns cannot sue for sexual harassment under New York City municipal civil rights laws.
Boys Gone Wild: Rough Horseplay Can Be Same-Sex Sexual Harassment
A recent federal court decision provides a useful reminder that abusive and offensive behavior that is targeted at employees of one gender can amount to unlawful sexual harassment. The particular behavior involved in this case was specifically βsexualβ in nature, but the courtβs decision makes it clear that even behavior with no sexual content can be sexual harassment if it is directed only at males or only at females.
Are Employers Properly Protecting Themselves From Harassment Claims?
Recent harassment cases should serve as a warning to employers regarding the effectiveness of their harassment policies, especially in hostile work environment cases.