Like a couple of sexting rabbits, a female employee and her male supervisor carrying on like, well, a pair of sexting rabbits. And, then, after the defendant-company fires the plaintiff-employee, she sues and claims that she was subjected to quid pro quo sexual harassment.
So, could it have gotten to the point that unwelcomed sexting became a required term or condition of the plaintiff’s employment?
In late December of 2012, the EEOC approved its Strategic Enforcement Plan for 2013-2016. Sadly, one of the agency’s enforcement priorities has been ignored on this blog.
Until now.
Who would have guessed that, in a state without a state administrative agency to accept discrimination charges, where only age discrimination is against state law, a federal judge would rule that sexual orientation is considered sex discrimination and, therefore, a violation of Title VII.
Something else you may not know about me.
On Saturday evenings, I crash Bar Mitzvahs and hustle blackjack. And then I’m like…
But then, on Sunday, it’s back the Bloggerdome for a new post. For this one, let’s talk about R. Kelly a recent Fourth Circuit decision in which the appellate court recognized that a single incident — one touch — may create a hostile work environment.
Butt slaps are rarely appropriate. Not in the courtroom. Not in the workplace. Even Buttslaps, LLC in Butte, Montana frowns on butt slaps at work.
(I totally made that last part up. Don’t Google it).
Where am I going with this? Hell When an employee sues for sexual harassment, he or she must prove several elements. One of those elements is that the employee was offended by sexual conduct directed at them.
You’re right, Commissioner Feldblum. Social media is awesome!
Last Friday, I posted here about a recent federal-court decision addressing the sex discrimination claims of a transgender employee. What drew my attention to the case was this Facebook status update from EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, in which she touted the court’s decision as further support for the EEOC’s position that transgender discrimination is sex discrimination under Title VII. In my Friday post, I concluded that, while the court did allow the plaintiff’s sex discrimination claims to proceed to trial, it wasn’t because of her transgender status. Rather, the court reasoned that the employer may have engaged in unlawful sex stereotyping. Sex stereotyping definitely violates Title VII.
In these Summer months, it’s easy to relax a bit. For example, last weekend I spent Sunday morning sleeping off a fun Saturday night in the shade of a tree on my front lawn while my four kids played slip-and-slide in traffic on the front lawn too. Although, I did catch my youngest two cooling off in drinking out of puddles on the sidewalk.
You won’t find this one on the SAT’s. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog
