A strictly enforced anti-harassment policy can counter an employee’s argument that she didn’t use the system because she believed it would not help.
Recent case: After temp agency worker Kimya Swann was fired for poor attendance, she claimed for the first time that her supervisor had sexually harassed her. Asked why she had not complained earlier—as required by a harassment policy she said she knew about—she said she did not believe that complaining would work.
The agency showed the court that it took harassment seriously when employees complained. In fact, in another case it had fired an employee for just one sexually harassing comment.
That was enough for the court to conclude that Swann couldn’t sue now after failing to use the process at the time of the alleged harassment. (Swann v. Source One Staffing, No. 5:09-CV-271, ED NC, 2011)
- Chicago firefighters' case burns on--focus still on allegedly biased promotion tests
- EEOC sues modeling school over firing of pregnant director
- Beware using medical costs as employment factor
- In NYC, get ready for 3rd disability standard
- Stamp out harassment fast--or risk EEOC case that snowballs out of control