by Stephen D. Hans | Nov 9, 2017 | Employment Harassment
Do You Have Harassment Issues in Your Company? The New York Times broke the story on October 5th about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment of actresses. That led to a criminal investigation, and now the whole company has come under the scrutiny of a civil investigation. On October 23, The New York Times reported that New York Attorney General, Eric T. Schneiderman opened an investigation into the Weinstein Company by sending a subpoena that requested documents such as personnel files, criteria for firing, termination and promotion, and filed with the company regarding sexual harassment, gender or age discrimination. In addition, the subpoena sought information as to how complaints were handled and any private out-of-court settlements reached. Company Financial Liability Whether the company is financially responsible for any of Harvey Weinstein’s misconduct is also subject to the investigation. Of the payments made by Harvey Weinstein in confidential settlements, the investigation seeks to discover whether other company people were involved and whether the payments came from the company or were personally paid by Weinstein. The Weinstein Company fired Harvey Weinstein several days after the October 5th news story broke in The New York Times. More than half of the nine company board members have resigned. Harvey’s brother Bob Weinstein, co-founder of the company, is involved in sales negotiations to sell either part of or the whole production studio. In addition, many employees have requested release from nondisclosure agreements so they are free to discuss their experiences at the company. Do Not Bury Your Head in the Sand With the power he wielded, movie producer Harvey Weinstein appeared to be untouchable. He won...
by Stephen D. Hans | May 16, 2017 | Employment Defense Attorney, Employment Discrimination, Employment Harassment
Many employers realize that preventing harassment in the workplace can mean the difference between a productive and profitable business and a business that faces legal threats and compromised profitability. Workplace harassment is a form of discrimination and can be based on sex, race, disability, age, ethnicity/national origin, color and religion. EEOC Study on Harassment Recently, the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released the results of a study about harassment along with recommendations that employers may find valuable in preventing workplace harassment. The study found that: Workplace harassment problems have persisted. In fact, about one-third (90,000) of the charges received by the EEOC in 2015 dealt with allegations of workplace harassment. Most employees fail to report workplace harassment and instead avoid the harasser, downplay the gravity of it, try to ignore it, forget or endure the harassment. The costs of workplace harassment through actions taken by the EEOC in 2016 totaled $164.5 million. Harassment is costly for businesses. Accountability for harassment must begin at the top of the work culture with its leaders. Training for sexual harassment over the past 30 years focuses on how to avoid legal liability rather than how to change the harassing behavior. This wrong form of training has allowed the problem to persist. EEOC Recommendations for Changing the Work Culture Different approaches to training would include some techniques that have proven to be effective on school campuses. The focus is on creating a culture that prevents discrimination. Approaches include: Bystander intervention training. Workers are trained to speak up and object when they see a co-worker being harassed by another worker. This is particularly necessary for supervisors...
by Stephen D. Hans | Dec 17, 2013 | Employment Harassment
Sexual harassment is discrimination that occurs in the workplace as defined by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In terms of employment law the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines sexual harassment as: “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: • Submission to such conduct was made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, • Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual was used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or • Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” Defenses in sexual harassment cases A typical defense for a sexual harassment case must be strong enough to prove that the harassment allegations are wrong such as: • A defense that shows the verbal, non-verbal, and/or physical actions of the defendant did not meet the legal definition of sexual harassment. For example, if the court finds that the victim exaggerated a claim and the defendant did not intentionally violate sexual harassment laws he or she may not be found to be guilty. • A defense that shows that the victim’s intent is to get the defendant in legal trouble for other reasons, but is using harassment as a way to do so. • A defense that proves that the victim is completely fabricating the harassment. Under this scenario it may be easy for the defense to find evidence against the victim and prove that the defendant was falsely...
by Stephen D. Hans | Sep 11, 2013 | Employment Harassment
In Vance v. Ball State University, the Supreme Court considered the definition of supervisor to determine employers’ liability for workplace harassment . At the heart of the case was the issue of whether a supervisor was an employee with authority to direct and oversee work or, an employee who had the power to take employment actions such as hiring, firing, demotion, promotion, or discipline on a harassment victim. The importance of the distinction Making this distinction was important because under the Civil Rights Act, the position of the harasser affects the level of employer liability. For example, if the harasser is only the victim’s coworker, the employer is only liable if it failed to control working conditions. However, if the harasser is a supervisor and some action is taken against the victim, the employer is exposed to a higher level of liability. Even when no definitive action is taken, the employer is still required to show that reasonable action was taken to prevent and quickly correct any harassment. Further, the employer would also need to show that the harassed employee failed to avail themselves of preventive or corrective opportunities the employer provided. The outcome In the Vance case, a female employee filed a suit against her employer, alleging that another employee created a racially hostile work environment. In both the district court and the appeals court, the employer was found not liable because the harassing employee was not a supervisor. The plaintive took the case to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 vote the high court ruled that, for the purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII, an employee...
