1980…EEOC interprets Title VII to forbid sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination..
1986.. Meritor Savings…Supreme Ct Decision…woman involved in a sexual relationship with her boss who feared for her job; opposes further relationship…Ct ruled “that employer is liable for sexual harassment committed by supervisor if it knew or should have known and did nothing to correct it”
1993.. Harris v Forklift Sys.. Supreme Ct established standards for hostile environment: (1) the employee subjectively perceives a hostile work environment; (2) the conduct was so severe and pervasive that a reasonable person would find a hostile work environment.
1998..Onscale v Sundowner Offshore Serv. Supreme Ct rules that sexual harassment applies to ‘same sex’ harassment at work.
1998..Farragher v City of Boca Raton/Burlington .Supreme Ct rules that employer has absolute liability for harassment action made by supervisor to subordinate employer if subjected to tangible employment action. Established Affirmative Defense Guidelines for Employers to impose regarding the investigation and correction of any harassment claim. If Employer imposes guidelines in good faith, and harassment victim is not subject to a tangible employment action, defense can be offered if complainant failed to use employer’s proffered affirmative defense procedures …Finally, a ruling that non-tangible actions can also be construed as retaliation…
the Supreme Court ruled that an employer can avoid punitive damages if it can show that it has implemented in good faith its Anti-discrimination policy.
2000… Casiano v AT&T.. Ct ruled that an employee must use existing avenues imposed by a company for anti-harassment.
2001… Beard v Flying J, Inc… Ct. ruled that an employee’s participation in ‘sexually provocative discussions’ did not permit inappropriate physical touching .
2003.. Ocheltree v Scollon Productions, Inc… Appelate Court Decision ruling that Offensive Sexual Bantering created a hostile work environment.
2005.. Miller v Dept of Corrections.. Calif. Supreme Ct. ruling that sexual favoritism can be grounds for a hostile environment whereby the boss would favor his ‘female lovers’ for favorable employment benefits, and thus demeaning to other women who elected not to partake.
RETALIATION OF ANY KIND IS PROHIBITED TO AN EMPLOYEE/APPLICANT:
FOR OPPOSING a perceived discriminatory action under eeoc law.
FOR FILING a previous complaint subject to eeoc law.
FOR PARTICIPATING as a witness subject to eeoc law.
FOR REQUESTING an accommodation subject to eeoc law.
BECAUSE OF CLOSE ASSOCIATIONS with someone engaged in protected activity.
LAKE RIDGE ACADEMY TO PAY NEARLY $1 MILLION FOR RETALIATORY DISCHARGE, JURY RULE IN EEOC SUIT The jury reached its unanimous verdict in the EEOC lawsuit after hearing testimony which proved that James Whiteman was fired in retaliation for opposing sex-based wage discrimination. The jury awarded back pay of $50,000, front pay of $50,000, and compensatory damages of $500,000. While the jury was deliberating the matter of punitive damages, the parties agreed to settle the case for a total of $950,000. The EEOC's suit was filed in U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, in Cleveland.
No Tangible action OCCURRED but subjected to : coercion, intimidation, threats, unjustified negative evaluations and/or references, or increased surveillance creating a retaliatory hostile work environment.
PLASTIC MOLDING COMPANIES SUED BY EEOC FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT ………… .. Industries, LLC, allowed Dean Miller, a male supervisor, and other male co-workers, to harass press operator Cathy Johnson and other women at the Sherman plant. The EEOC says the female workers were forced to endure myriad sexually explicit comments and propositions, and many of the victims were grabbed and touched by Miller. Several women quit because of the harassment, and one woman quit her job after Miller phoned her at work threatening to sexually assault her in the employees' parking lot. Although several complaints were made by victims to management, the company failed to properly investigate complaints and stop the misconduct, the EEOC contends. … FRED MEYER STORES TO PAY $485,000 FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION … the company's practice of harassing female employees occurred during 2004 through 2005 at the Fred Meyer Oregon City store. The EEOC says the sexually hostile work environment started at the top, with illegal conduct by the store director and operations manager. The EEOC further asserted in the litigation that the store director and operations manager repeatedly subjected females to graphic sexual discussions, unwanted touching, and requests for sexual favors.
Employer Liability Subject to Unlawful Conduct by:
CO-WORKER/ CLIENT HARASSMENT Liability Standard
SEVERE OR PERVASIVE Conduct (Applies to Sexual, Race, other)
Non-Tangible Actions/Tangible Actions
Determined by nature and frequency
Name Calling; Unfulfilled Threats; removal of authority; demeaning behavior; humiliating assignments; unjustified performance reviews.
Can a reasonable person still come to work under these conditions?
Do we have an intimidating, hostile, retaliatory or offensive work environment?
Is this occurring because of harassment or because the aggrieved party filed a complaint, or both?
Was this reported, and what happened?
HR must Investigate, Stop & Correct any potential violation!
HARASSMENT APPLIES TO: Race Ethnicity Color AGE
CONDUCT WHICH IS UNREASONABLY OFFENSIVE: REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD
LOCKHEED MARTIN TO PAY $2.5 MILLION TO SETTLE RACIAL HARASSMENT HONOLULU __ The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a major settlement of a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Lockheed Martin, the world's largest military contractor, for $2,500,000 and other relief on behalf of an African American electrician who was subjected to a racially hostile work environment at several job sites nationwide - including threats of lynching and the "N-word." EEOC SUES KMART FOR AGE HARASSMENT , RETALIATION EEOC charged in its suit that the pharmacy manager of a Kmart in Honolulu subjected the ,woman to age-based Insults, such as telling her she was "too old to work," that she "should retire, should retire from pharmacy work now," and other discriminatory conduct. Although Kmart received notice of the harassment, the company failed to take appropriate action to investigate and correct the hostile workplace, as the law requires. Instead, the EEOC said, Kmart subjected the woman to a hostile work environment by berating her for lack of competence, discriminatory comments In performance evaluations, telling her again to retire, and wrongfully accusing her of regulatory Violations. Finally, the pharmacist was forced to resign to escape the discriminatory conduct.
SWISSOTEL PAYS DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED EMPLOYEE $90,000 TO SETTLE EEOC HARASSMENT SUIT The EEOC charged in its suit that Swissotel violated the ADA by permitting two supervisors at its downtown Chicago hotel to harass the employee because of his developmental disability. Specifically, the EEOC said, the employee was repeatedly called "retarded" by his supervisors. Further, the EEOC charged, Swissotel then terminated the employee because of his disability. EEOC SUES KMART FOR AGE HARASSMENT , RETALIATION EEOC charged in its suit that the pharmacy manager of a Kmart in Honolulu subjected the ,woman to age-based Insults, such as telling her she was "too old to work," that she "should retire, should retire from pharmacy work now," and other discriminatory conduct. Although Kmart received notice of the harassment, the company failed to take appropriate action to investigate and correct the hostile workplace, as the law requires. Instead, the EEOC said, Kmart subjected the woman to a hostile work environment by berating her for lack of competence, discriminatory comments In performance evaluations, telling her again to retire, and wrongfully accusing her of regulatory Violations. Finally, the pharmacist was forced to resign to escape the discriminatory conduct .