Courts are losing patience with employers that ignore sexual harassment instead of dealing with it right away.
Recent case: When Richmond municipal employee Dean Vigil allegedly sexually harassed a subordinate via vulgar and suggestive text messages, the woman complained. But it took eight months for the city of Richmond to act. It then fired Vigil—who in turn demanded arbitration under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
An arbitrator reinstated him, concluding the agreement required the city to take action within six months of any alleged wrongdoing. Now the Court of Appeal of California has approved the reinstatement, explaining that employers are responsible for balancing competing workplace rights to avoid liability. (Richmond v. SEIU, No. A127492, Court of Appeal of California, 2010)
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- Invest a little in harassment training upfront to avoid sky-high litigation costs later
- Employee using medical marijuana? Firing won't be a violation of the ADA
- Watch those nicknames: Turning El-Hakem into 'Hank' spells bias
- Checklist: A practical guide to investigating workplace harassment