“It happens more often than one might think: A worker sues a fellow worker of the same sex for sexual harassment.What doesn’t happen very often is that the case goes to trial. That’s why a federal trial in Louisiana, which began Tuesday, is making history. John Cherry claims that he was sexually harassed for six months in 2007 by his former supervisor, Michael Reasoner. Both men worked for the Shaw Group, a a Baton Rouge-based industrial services firm (which Mr. Cherry is also suing), and both are married. It is the first trial of its kind to reach federal court in Louisiana. Mr. Reasoner has responded to Mr. Cherry’s suit with a counterclaim for defamation. Shaw also denies any wrongdoing.”
This article goes on to note that the EEOC is seeing a significant increase in both men filing sexual harassment charges and charges alleging same sex harassment. Harassment Cases Evolving.
A work environment is considered “hostile” under both Hawaii and federal law when sexual behavior is severe or pervasive enough to alter the complaining employee’s employment conditions and create an abusive work environment. This occurs when unwelcome sexual or gender-based conduct has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating or offensive work environment or unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance.
Sexual flirtation or innuendo, even vulgar language or sexist remarks that are trivial or merely annoying, would probably not meet the legal definition of a hostile environment. But such activity can still be prohibited by workplace policy and should be stopped as soon as management becomes aware of it. Read more…
November 10th, 2009
admin
During an investigation into a harassment claim involving allegations of harassment by text message, can an employer access employees’ text messages outside of a discovery request without violating their expectations of privacy? View an article on this issue here: Text Harassment Investigations.
Prompt, thorough and effective investigations are an integral part of an employer’s prevention and correction of sexual and other forms of unlawful harassment in the workplace. Recent United States Supreme Court decisions have emphasized the importance of the employer’s efforts to prevent sexually harassing behavior and promptly correct any such behavior which does occur.
These decisions establish that in sexual harassment job cases involving harassment by a supervisor where no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may avoid liability if it can prove as an affirmative defense that: (1) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the employer’s anti-harassment policies and any preventive or corrective opportunities. Read more…
It is well established now under federal Title VII law that an employer is liable for actionable sexual harassment caused by a supervisor with “immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee.” However, in cases where the employee does not suffer a “tangible employment action,” such as discharge, demotion, or an unfavorable reassignment, there is an affirmative defense that an employer may raise to avoid Title VII liability and damages.
Read more…
