Library Search
-
Employers Face Greater Risk From Workplace Romance: California Supreme Court Rules That Office Affairs May Give Rise To Sexual Favoritism Claims ( August 2005 )
Employees in California may now sue their employers for sexual harassment if a sexual affair between a supervisor and a subordinate results in "sexual favoritism" creating a hostile work environment for those employees not involved in the affair. A unanimous California Supreme Court in Miller v. Department of Corrections held that consensual sexual affairs may constitute sexual harassment if "sexual favoritism" – giving preference with regard to the terms of employment to a lover to the detriment of other employees – is sufficiently widespread to create an actionable hostile work environment under California's unlawful harassment law. -
Sexual Harassment: An Ounce Of Corporate Prevention ( September 2004 )
Sexual harassment has receive widespread media attention over the past few years, first attaining national recognition with Anita Hill's testimony at the confirmation hearings of United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and culminating with a jury verdict of $7,000,000 in the case involving a secretary's claims against a partner in the California law firm of Baker & Mackenzie. -
Hostile Environment and Constructive Discharge: When the Employer is Strictly Liable ( July 2004 )
In a clarification of the application of the affirmative defense first made available in the Court's <em>Ellerth </em>and <em>Faragher </em>decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the affirmative defense is available to employers in some, but not all, cases of constructive discharge. The critical question is whether the "quit" was precipitated by any official act of a supervisor such that the employer should be strictly liable for the consequences or, alternatively, whether the employer played no role in the "quit" and, therefore, can defend itself by proving the affirmative defense. -
Protecting Your Organization From Expanding Workplace Harassment And Retaliation Liability ( May 2004 )
Several 1998 U.S. Supreme Court decisions emphasized that every employer MUST develop company policies on sexual and other forms of harassment. As part of the policy it should be stated that such behavior will not be tolerated, and shall serve as a basis for termination. -
House Approves Comprehensive Energy Legislation andDebate Underway in the Senate ( November 2003 )
A summary of Title II (Renewable Energy ) and Title IV (Coal) of the proposed Energy Policy Act of 2003. -
Harassment of the Disabled: A Workplace Issue ( January 2003 )
Claims under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) traditionally have focused on adverse employment decisions such as terminations or challenged working conditions or assignments. Recently, however, ADA plaintiffs have been adding claims for harassment because of their disability. -
Employees Gain Legal Ground: US Supreme Court Authorizes Recovery for Untimely Discriminatory Acts ( September 2002 )
The US Supreme Court recently resolved a hotly contested legal issue that had spurred numerous conflicting viewpoints nationwide-whether an employee can recover damages for discriminatory/harassing acts that occurred outside of the statutory time limits for filing a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). -
Staring at Co-worker and Soured Romance May Rise to Level of Sexual Harassment ( September 2002 )
A California appeals court ruled that unwelcome staring by a male employee at a female co-worker may constitute unlawful harassment. The woman complained that the man had repeatedly asked her out and made sexually suggestive comments. In response, the company ordered the man to stay away from the woman. -
Front Pay Not Subject to Damage Caps ( September 2000 )
May Title VII plaintiffs obtain awards of front pay which are not subject to the damage caps? The answer is a resounding yes!