You wouldn’t fire someone because they complained to you about sexual harassment at work. For starters, that would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But, Title VII’s anti-retaliation provisions are much broader than that.
As in faster than an employee can complain about discrimination to HR or to the EEOC.
Nope, no clickbait here. And no irony in the lede either.
Plus, I feel like I’ve seen this one before.
Starting tomorrow.
Today, let’s talk about the employee who claimed sexual harassment because her male co-worker constantly stared at her with an erection — which she subsequently photographed and showed to other co-workers, and all of that morphed into a retaliation claim.
So, basically, this post will be like a sophisticated bar exam question.
These are the key allegations underpinning ***Googles “underpinning”*** yes, underpinning a complaint filed in California against luxury retailer Versace.
Are you guys old enough to remember that old NFL Films Dial ‘M’ For Moron bit? What can I say? I’m a sucker for the classics.
Well, it’s all I could think of after reading this EEOC press release, highlighting a recent race discrimination and retaliation action against a car dealership because it did the equivalent of Dial ‘M’ For Moron.
You received a complaint of sexual harassment from a female employee against a male co-worker.
So, you promptly investigate, during which you interview the complainant and the alleged harasser, and review documents. When the investigation ends, you conclude that the female complainant — not the male co-worker — was the sexual harasser. So, you promptly fire the female employee.
Legally, did you do anything wrong? Well, notwithstanding the factual twist, it doesn’t seem that way. But things aren’t always as they seem. And I’d get a day off from blogging if this one were that straightforward
There was a time when I got that question from employer-clients more times than Tony Romo’s chokes in December.
The Employer Handbook Blog
