Employers con sexual harassment victims by means of a “see no evil, hear no evil” policy.

Particularly, in the case of co-worker sexual harassment, an employer can only be found liable for sexual harassment if management is aware that sexual harassment is occurring in the workplace.  As a result, some employers have adopted a “see no evil, hear no evil” strategy.

Management may be fully aware that sexual harassment is occurring, but deliberately pretend that is is not occurring in order to avoid liability.  Management may even discourage victims of sexual harassment from complaining.  Spicer v. Com. of Va., Dept. of Corrections, 66 F. 3d 705, 710 (4th Cir. 1995) (We reiterated this requirement in Swentek, holding that an employer is liable only “where it had `actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of a sexually hostile work environment and took no prompt and adequate remedial action.'” 830 F.2d at 558 (quoting Katz) (emphasis added).  Knowledge of work place misconduct may be imputed to an employer by circumstantial evidence if the conduct is shown to be sufficiently pervasive or repetitive so that a reasonable employer, intent on complying with Title VII, would be aware of the conduct.); Jackson v. Quanex Corp., 191 F. 3d 647, 664 (6th Cir. 1999)

“An employer cannot avoid Title VII liability for coworker harassment by adopting a “see no evil, hear no evil” strategy.” Ocheltree v. Scollon Productions, Inc., 335 F. 3d 325, 334 (4th Cir. 2003)  “Once the employer has notice, then it must respond with remedial action reasonably calculated to end the harassment.” EEOC v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 521 F.3d 306, 319 (4th Cir. 2008)

Therefore, victims of workplace sexual harassment should document each incident of harassment in real time.  Documentation can be evidence of sexual harassment if a lawsuit is filed.  Victims of workplace sexual harassment should seek corroboration from other victims of sexual harassment; there is strength in numbers.  Finally, victims of workplace sexual harassment must complaint to management and/or government entities, such as, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

 

Bryan A. Chapman, Esquire

www.baclaw.com

bchapman@baclaw.com

202 508-1499

Advertisements

Race-Based Claims Filed Under 42 USC 1981 Offer Advantages.

On May 27, 2008 the Supreme Court issued its opinion in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 128 S.Ct. 1951 (2008).  The Court held that plaintiffs may bring claims for race-based retaliation under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.  Race-based retaliation claims brought under Section 1981 have advantages over similar claims brought under Title VII.

Under Section 1981:

  • Plaintiffs are not required to submit their claims for review by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

 

  • Employer are exposed to unlimited damages.

 

  • The statute of limitations can be as long as four years.

 

  • Both employers and individual employees can be named as defendants.

 

  • Employers with fewer than fifteen employees can be held liable for damages.

 

Under Title VII:

  • Plaintiffs must submit their claims for review by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and EEOC must issue a “Right to Sue” letter.

 

  • Employers are exposed to a maximum of $300,000 in compensatory and/or punitive damages.

 

  • The statute of limitation for filing a complaint with EEOC is generally 180 days.

 

  • Only employers can be named as defendants.

 

  • Employers with fewer than fifteen employees cannot be held liable for damages.

 

Bryan A. Chapman, Esquire

www.baclaw.com

Published in: on December 31, 2010 at 9:22 pm  Comments (4)  
Tags: , , ,
%d bloggers like this: