Search
The Employer Handbook BlogSupervisor’s advice to sexually-harassed employee: “Pray…”
Worst. advice. ever.
More on this doozy involving two Denny’s waitresses after the jump…
* * *
Articles Posted in Retaliation
SCOTUS: Religious groups nearly exempt from job-bias laws
Yesterday, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar employment-discrimination lawsuits by ministers against their churches. More on this decision and some helpful reminders for private-sector employers after the jump…
* * *
Your favorite “The Employer Handbook” posts from 2011
As the year draws to a close, let’s take a look back at the most popular posts at The Employer Handbook in 2011, based on number of hits:
5. Social media and the workplace. School teacher Natalie Munroe made several appearances on the blog this year. Remember her? She was the blogging school teacher who wrote that her students were “utterly loathsome in all imaginable ways.” Although, Ms. Munroe eventually returned to work, her experience is a sound reminder to always think twice before hitting “send.” You can read the fifth-most-popular post, “Yes, you CAN discipline employees who abuse social media” here.
4. I’m a poet and I don’t even know it. I’m not sure what inspired the fourth-most-popular post. It must have been a slow news day. How else do I come up with the idea to Haiku — verbing a noun, sorry — about recent employment-law decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court?
Fail! NYU prof fired for giving actor James Franco a “D”?
I need to come clean with y’all. TMZ.com is one of my guilty pleasures. Don’t hate!
And you should have seen the beaming smile on my face on Monday when when I got some blogging gold as TMZ ran a story about a former college professor at NYU who claims that the school discriminated against him by firing him for, among other things, giving actor James Franco a “D”.
The monkey’s out of the bottle now! More after the jump…
* * *
Nothing good comes of forcing employees to go to brothels
And, then, there are those that allegedly do. It is on those occasions that this blog can practically write itself.
Take, for example, AutoNation. According to a complaint recently filed in California state court — well, let’s just say that AutoNation better have some good lawyers.
A copy of the complaint and some crazazy unlawful harassment — allegedly, of course — follows after the jump. Along with a few employer tips on same-sex harassment.
* * *
Will ya just retire already? No, but I’ll sue for age discrimination.
Back in August, I blogged about a case where a federal court held that an employer inquiring about an employee’s retirement plans, alone, does not discriminate on the basis of age. But what about relentlessly browbeating a plaintiff into retiring? Could that be age discrimination? What do you think, Brett? Find out after the jump…
* * *
A little ambiguity creates a BIG retaliation headache for employers
Retaliation claims have become the leading cause of action for employees. In fiscal year 2010, retaliation charges filed with the EEOC nationwide accounted for 36.3% of all filings, at 36,258. There are three essential elements of a retaliation claim:
- Employee Protected Activity – opposition to discrimination or participation in the statutory complaint process;
- Employer Adverse Action – any adverse treatment (beyond a petty slight or a trivial annoyance) that is based on a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter protected activity; and
- Causal Connection – between the protected activity and the adverse action.
What makes retaliation claims so common? Well, it’s not so much because they are are easy for employees to prove. In my opinion, it’s because retaliation claims are tough for employers to disprove prior to trial.
Case in point after the jump…
* * *
Hot Dog! EEOC accuses eatery of same-sex sexual harassment
Frankly, Anthony Weiner ain’t got nothin’ on this Weiner.
The EEOC announced on Monday that it had sued Nu-Way Weiners, one of the oldest hot dog restaurants in the country, on behalf of two female employees. More after the jump…
* * *
Third Circuit delivers a cat’s paw gouging to employers
Note: The original working title for this post was “Yo! A-Yo! Federal courts in Philly and NYC get all catty and stuff”. I mention this not because it’s a recycled New Yorker headline, but because it puts into context the gratuitous shots I take at NY sports teams sprinkled into this post.
* * *
Back in March of this year, the United States Supreme Court in Staub v. Proctor Hospital recognized that an employee may have a tenable claim for discrimination under USERRA even if the person who fired him did not discriminate. That is, if a supervisor’s bias motivates a firing — even if the firing is carried out by someone else who is both squeaky-clean and higher up in the food chain — then the firing is discriminatory. This is known as the “cat’s paw” theory.
Same goes for the MetsSince March, other courts have weighed in. As you know from reading this blog, on June, the Tenth Circuit held that the Staub decision applies to claims of age bias.
And, this month, we get cat’s paw decisions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. One of ’em is good for employers. The other, not so much. More on these decisions and what they will mean for local businesses after the jump…
* * *
Sleep with me, or you’re fired!
Sex sells.
My most popular posts at The Employer Handbook — that’s based on you reading them (you’re all sick I tells ya, sick!!! And remember, I’m logging IP addresses) — generally involve some element of sexual behavior. You have the Brazilian self-stimulator. Actually, make that sexual behaviour — there’s the Australian hotel sex romp.
One of my readers asked if I’d heard about the recent sexual harassment lawsuit in Utah (the home of sex in a supply closet), in which a woman alleged, among other things, that her supervisor distributed a work schedule that included included “Mini-skirt Monday,” “Tube-top Tuesday,” “Wet T-shirt Wednesday,” “No bra Thursday,” and “Bikini top Friday.” Come on, now. You know me! Just this week, I read five articles (here, here, here, here, here) about it. You can find 23 more articles about “No bra Thursday” here.
“Guess my high score in Leisure Suit Larry.”
Then there’s the NY Post story (naturally) about a 23-year-old lesbian who claims that seven staff members in her real estate office groped, slapped, flashed, fondled and subjected her to racial abuse and death threats. One of the staffers allegedly offered her $60 for oral sex and told her all Puerto Rican girls are good at it.
Me? I like writing about these cases because it’s a good excuse to use stock sexual harassment photos from Google Images — like the one on the right, which, given the size of the shoulder pads in the lady’s jacket and the dimensions of that desktop computer — no doubt housing a 5.25 inch floppy disk drive — is a screencap from L.A. Law.
How about one more sexual harassment case for ya? This time, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals gets in on the act and reverses summary judgment in favor of an employer where the plaintiff alleged sexual harassment and retaliation when her boss forcibly kissed her, fondled her leg, propositioned her, asked her sexually explicit questions, described sexual activities he wished to perform, and then, after she spurned the advances and filed a harassment complaint, fired her (on the day she complained).
More on this and, of course, lessons for employers, after the jump…
* * *