A recent decision from the Third Circuit shows how courts are looking closely—not just at what arbitration agreements say, but also at how they’re rolled out. And even if a dispute doesn’t qualify for the new federal carveout for sexual harassment claims, employers still need to be ready to prove their agreements are enforceable. Continue reading
Human resources professionals often encounter bizarre and unexpected situations, especially around the holidays. However, few can top the case where an employee’s choice of attire—or lack thereof—led to a significant legal battle over retaliatory discharge. This recent federal court decision serves as a humorous yet critical reminder of the importance of timing and documentation in handling retaliation claims.
The Incident: A Wardrobe Malfunction
Picture this: It’s a typical evening in February 2022, and a truck driver for a hauling and grading company arrives at a warehouse in Houston, Texas. As she navigates the lot, she spots a co-worker strolling in front of his tractor wearing nothing but underwear and penny loafers. Naturally, she Facetimes another co-worker to share the “very odd and uncomfortable sight.”
Last year, several media outlets reported about a lawsuit that a clothing designer who worked for Lizzo and her touring company had asserted against them and another individual. That lawsuit included several claims under state law for discrimination, retaliation, and assault, among others.
On paper, it didn’t sound good for the defendants. Continue reading
An employee claiming that she endured sexual harassment must present evidence of “severe or pervasive” conduct based on her sex that was bad enough to interfere with her working conditions or create an intimidating workplace.
When a plaintiff initially presents these claims in court an initial filing, she does not have to detail every sordid fact and incident. Indeed, a short, plain statement of the facts — enough to place the defendant on notice of the claims against it will suffice.
At the same time, those initial claims of sexual harassment must be plausible — even in California, the most employee-friendly state in the country.
Kind of sounds like the start of a beautiful movie or novel, doesn’t it?
Unfortunately, however, it became more Lady Gaga. Or, more precisely, the writings of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals adjudicating an on-again-off-again sexual relationship between the “lovers” who became “colleagues” in the “workplace” and, later, plaintiff and defendant in a quid pro quo sexual harassment lawsuit.
Often, an employer has affirmative defenses when an employee accuses a supervisor of sexual harassment. But Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes liability automatic in two ways.
In most places, a plaintiff who claims that their former employer sexually harassed them must establish that the conduct to which they were subjected was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile or abusive work environment.
In New York, however, not so much. Continue reading
Last month, I told you that an employer’s response to a harassment complaint doesn’t need to be perfect. Just ok may do. That’s because an employer that learns about sexual harassment needs to respond in a way that is reasonably designed to end the complained-of behavior.
Well, I read a recent federal court decision in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged that an employer’s response to complaints of sexual harassment in September and December 2019 was deficient in at least four ways. Continue reading
Federal agencies, like the U.S. Department of Justice, often publish news releases touting their lawsuits and significant judgments against employer scofflaws.
But, I know a big one — a $1.2M judgment — that the DOJ will want to forget. Continue reading
I’m going to tell you about what may be the least self-aware employee. At least in recent memory. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog