Articles Discussing General Topics In Workplace Sexual Harassment.

In a manufacturing environment, employees often work near each other, and the level of noise can cause conversations to go unheard by others not in the immediate vicinity. Like the quintessential example of “locker room talk,” “shop talk” in a manufacturing environment can walk a fine line between employee banter and inappropriate, or, in extreme cases, even illegal, conduct.

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

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

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.

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 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).

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.

Accusations of harassment against Harvey Weinstein, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Bill Cosby and now even Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, among many others, over the past year underscore one thing: No one, whether he or she is a prominent politician, corporate CEO, judge, famous entertainer, ambassador or consul general, is immune from the adverse publicity, if not liability, that follows once harassment claims are made.

Following a February 2018 Sports Illustrated article regarding alleged sexual harassment and misconduct within Dallas Basketball Limited, the Dallas Mavericks basketball organization (“Mavericks”), the Mavericks commissioned an independent investigation into the claims. The investigators, comprised of two outside law firms, interviewed 215 witnesses and analyzed 1.6 million documents. The investigation report was publicly released on September 19, 2018.

Congress recently passed the 2017 Tax Cuts & Jobs Act which includes Internal Revenue Code §162(q). Specifically