 |
 |
|
| Sexual Harassment Compliance Policies Can Keep You Out of the Danger Zone |
|
| Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII defines sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature," when "submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment." |
|
 |
|
| Sexual Harassment Compliance Regulations |
|
| Federal law recognizes two different sets of legal grounds for claiming sexual harassment under Title VII: |
|
• Quid pro quo — an authority figure demands sexual favors of a subordinate as a condition of getting or keeping a job benefit
• A hostile work environment — fostered by a coworker or supervisor who engages in unwelcome and inappropriate sexually based behavior, making the atmosphere intimidating, hostile, or offensive
For more information about sexual harassment compliance, click here to download a free HR compliance report.
|
 - Recent Lawsuits |
|
|
|
In August, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent a sexual harassment case against Boeing Company back to a lower court for additional hearings, finding that there was enough evidence to permit a jury to consider harassment and retaliation claims on behalf of a female helicopter mechanic. The appellate judges also said that questions remained about whether the company had taken adequate steps in handling the reported harassment and whether it had retaliated against the mechanic for reporting the problem. According to the court, an employee, who was eventually fired, had been placed in the mechanic’s department because he had harassed other female employees repeatedly, and the harassment of the mechanic continued even after Boeing took first steps toward ending it, which the company should have been aware of.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has ruled that a female receptionist was not subject to gender discrimination when she was fired by her company for refusing to serve coffee to male supervisors. She had claimed that she was “compelled to perform servile tasks for her male supervisors”. The judge in the case said, “The act of getting coffee is not, by itself, a gender-specific act” and the court could find no other indicators of sexism. In addition, getting coffee for supervisors was a responsibility associated with her position as receptionist. The claim of quid pro quo harassment was also rejected by the court because she did not show that her supervisors had made sexual advances toward her. Her retaliation claim was rejected as well.
 DOWNLOAD: Checklist for investigating sexual harassment complaints
WEBCAST: Get Your Questions Answered on Sexual Harassment Investigations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
If the court rules in a victim's favor, he or she can receive up to $300,000 in compensatory damages for each incident of unlawful harassment, as well as back pay, attorney's fees, and possibly additional money damages under state or local law. |
|
|
Verdicts can lead to company liability, not for sexual harassment per se but for intentional infliction of emotional suffering, negligent supervision, invasion of privacy, assault, battery, or any number of other torts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|