Menu

Showing 12 posts in Harassment.

Being Called a Racist Is Not Unlawful Harassment If Comments Are Not Racially Motivated

March 27, 2018 by Evan J. Bonnett

Employers are equipped and know how to handle complaints of racial discrimination and harassment—or at least should be so prepared. However, facts have a funny way of developing into novel situations. What happens, for instance, if an employee is being called a racist by other employees? More ›

6th Circuit First Appellate Court to Declare Transgender or Transitioning Status Discrimination is Sex Discrimination Under Title VII

March 11, 2018 by Elizabeth A. Odian

In a milestone decision, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held discrimination based on an employee’s transgender or transitioning status violates Title VII. In addition, the court held as a matter of law that a religious employer “cannot rely on customers’ presumed biases to establish a substantial burden” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Thus, the employer’s sincerely held religious beliefs did not free it from the proscriptions of Title VII. More ›

The 12 days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 12 "Sexual Harassment Training Requirements Expanded for Farm Contractors"

December 23, 2017 by Mellissa A. Schafer

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2018. In the spirit of the season, we are using the next "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. On the twelfth day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me – twelve lords a leaping and SB 295. More ›

The 12 days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 3 "Transgender Work Opportunity Act"

December 12, 2017 by Mellissa A. Schafer

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2018. In the spirit of the season, we are using the next "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. On the Third Day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me – three French hens and SB 396. More ›

Employee's Emotional Distress Claim Not Pre-empted but Not Actionable Emotional Distress Either

September 1, 2017 by Linda K. Horras

The United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit recently addressed whether common law tort claims arising during the employment relationship are pre-empted by the Illinois Human Rights Act simply because they share similar fact patterns to claims of discrimination or harassment in Richards v. U.S. Steel. The answer is no. More ›

EEOC Seeks Public Input on Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Unlawful Harassment

January 12, 2017 by Linda K. Horras

The EEOC issued Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Unlawful Harassment on January 10, 2017. It is designed to consolidate numerous agency guidelines into one document and addresses hostile work environment harassment prohibited by statutes enforced by the EEOC. The Guidance examines three primary elements of a harassment claim. First, is the conduct based on a legally protected status; second, is the conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment; and third, is there a basis for employer liability. The 75-page treatise covers key case law since the Supreme Court first recognized harassment as an actionable form of discrimination in 1986. More ›

NY Transit Agencies Escape Vicarious Liability for Contractors Alleged Discrimination

April 28, 2016 by Thaddeus A. Harrell

It is not uncommon for companies to contract their daily business operations to third-party companies. In Motta et al v. Global Contact Services, Inc., the court addressed whether such relationships relieve the outsourcing company of any duties to address discrimination or harassment in the workplace. More ›

In Significant Title VII Harassment Decision, U.S. Supreme Court Limits Definition of “Supervisor”

June 25, 2013 by Eileen M. Caver

An African-American female who served in a University's dining services division filed a complaint against the University alleging racial harassment and discrimination due to the actions of a white catering specialist who worked at the same location. The catering specialist did not direct the employee's day-to-day activities or have authority to hire, fire, demote or discipline the employee, but sometimes handed the employee her list of tasks and directed the employee in the kitchen. The employee alleged that the catering specialist was her supervisor and that the University was liable for the creation of a racially hostile work environment. More ›

Second Circuit Grants Injunctive Relief to Prevent Recurring Sexual Harassment

November 15, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  (EEOC) brought a lawsuit on behalf of a class of female employees against a grocery store operating in Oswego, New York, alleging sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and New York State law. The sole alleged harasser was the store manager, who was alleged to have engaged in verbal and physical harassment. An employee made numerous complaints to management about this alleged harassment, but the store owner allegedly discredited the complaints, likely due to the fact that the store owner and the alleged harasser were in a long term romantic relationship. After a jury trial, the employee was awarded over $1.25 million in compensatory and punitive damages. More ›

Employees’ Delay in Complaining of Harassment lead to Dismissal of Claims

January 13, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Five mid-level supervisors brought suit for racial and sexual harassment against their employer based upon purported physical and verbal misconduct by a higher-level supervisor. It turned out, however, that the employees had delayed almost eight months before reporting the misconduct, despite the fact that the employer had a “zero tolerance” policy regarding this type of misconduct, had policies in place which set forth the complaint process. The employer only learned of the supervisor’s alleged misconduct after the employees filed EEOC charges, and at that time, the employer undertook a prompt investigation. The employees claimed that they didn’t complain earlier because their complaints would have been ignored and/or because they feared retaliation. More ›

Search
Subscribe via Email
RSSSubscribe to this blog's feed
TwitterFollow us on Twitter

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives