This one just might take the cake. Or, at least frost you ... It’s true that employers sometimes trot out the “equal opportunity jerk” defense in sexual harassment cases, saying the harassing manager was awful to both women and men. But this court says that isn’t much of a defense at all, noting that, “It would be exceedingly perverse” if an employer could shield itself from Title VII liability by showing an alleged harasser sometimes abused men “although his preferred targets were female.”
Case In Point
Mindy Chapman Esq. is the founder of the nationally acclaimed “Workplace
Training that Clicks & Sticks™” and co-author of the American Bar
Association’s best seller and authority on civil rights training, “Case
Dismissed! Taking Your Harassment Prevention Training to Trial.” Case In Point is an entertaining look at the employment law cases impacting you today, plus practical ways to protect yourself and your company.
Remember what a stamp was? You’d slap it on an envelope, and the letter inside remained private. But technology has changed—and so has privacy expectations of work communications. When employees send text messages on employer-provided phones, are those texts as private as a message in a bottle … or a message in the sky? The U.S. Supreme Court penned a long-awaited warning last week: For now, employees shouldn’t expect text messages at work to be private.
Look, I keep warning you about the “new” EEOC and how it’s getting more and more aggressive. It’s keeping more cases, rather than issuing “right to sue” letters. It’s securing more smaller settlements, but in greater volume. And it’s creating more burdensome terms to settle consent decrees and conciliation agreements. Now, a new court ruling just gave the EEOC even more powerful ammunition to use against your company if it's accused of discrimination …
Listen up! Breaking news! It doesn’t really matter whom you label as a supervisor any more. As a way to hold a company liable for sexually harassing conduct by a “supervisor,” one court recently relabeled a co-worker as a “supervisor,” even though this person had absolutely no power to hire, fire, promote, demote or otherwise affect the harassed employee’s job status. The court, with the support of the EEOC, ruled that just being the “highest ranking employee on site” with the ability to set schedules and dole out discipline makes for a supervisor as a matter of law.