Starting today, plan to revise your anti-harassment policies and instruct your staff that harassment based on a worker's disability is against the law. Reason: In a pair of landmark rulings, two federal appeals courts have said that employees with disabilities can sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for harassment.
With similar rulings from two district courts, expect other circuits to fall in line soon. Here's how the two cases played out:
Case 1: HIV-positive worker becomes pariah. Sandra Flowers was friendly with her immediate supervisor, Margaret Hallmark. They'd go out for lunch, drinks and movies. But that all changed when it was discovered that Flowers is HIV-positive.
Hallmark not only refused to go to lunch but also began intercepting Flowers' phone calls and eavesdropping on her conversations. The company's regional president also suddenly became distant, refusing even to shake Flowers' hand. And Flowers was suddenly subjected to frequent drug tests and disciplinary actions, even though she had earned high performance ratings for years. Eventually, she was fired.
Flowers sued, claiming that she suffered from a hostile work environment because of her disability. A jury agreed and granted her $350,000. An appeals court upheld the disability-harassment argument but shaved her award to nominal damages. (Flowers v. Southern Regional Physician Services Inc., No. 99-31354, 5th Cir., 2001)
Case 2: GM worker is mocked for his injuries. Robert Fox, a longtime GM worker, suffered a series of back injuries, and his doctor restricted him to light duty. But Fox's supervisors still forced him to perform jobs beyond his physical abilities. Co-workers resented his light-duty accommodation and complained to the supervisors.
Both supervisors and co-workers swore at Fox and made fun of his disabilities. A supervisor instructed employees not to talk to co-workers with disabilities. The company also barred disabled workers from putting in overtime.
When Fox sued, a jury awarded him more than $200,000 for his hostile work environment. The appeals court agreed. (Fox v. General Motors Corp., No. 00-1589, 4th Cir., 2001)
To determine if GM was liable, the court used the five standards for a hostile environment under Title VII. Specifically, it looked at whether:
- The employee was a qualified person with a disability.
- He was subjected to unwelcome harassment.
- The harassment was based on his disability.
- The harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter a term, condition or privilege of employment.
- There was some indication that the employer was liable for the harassment.
Like what you've read? ...Republish it and share great business tips!
Attention: Readers, Publishers, Editors, Bloggers, Media, Webmasters and more...
We believe great content should be read and passed around. After all, knowledge IS power. And good business can become great with the right information at their fingertips. If you'd like to share any of the insightful articles on BusinessManagementDaily.com, you may republish or syndicate it without charge.
The only thing we ask is that you keep the article exactly as it was written and formatted. You also need to include an attribution statement and link to the article.
" This information is proudly provided by Business Management Daily.com: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/904/protect-disabled-staff-from-harassment "
- Apply zero-tolerance policy on workplace violence across the board
- Green light given for disparate mental, physical benefits
- Don't expect quick dismissal just because employee has decided to act as his own attorney
- Workers who pursue internal discrimination grievances have extra time to sue
- Don't get nicked by grooming policies that have disparate impact on minorities