Search
The Employer Handbook BlogThe one about the porta-potty harassment
Hey, they can’t all be about Brazilian waxes and irresistible attraction. After the jump, we get down and dirty.
* * *
Articles Posted in Sexual Harassment
YYYOUCH! Employee fired for refusing Brazilian wax claims sex discrimination.
You know, maybe I should have gone with the porta-potty-harassment post that I originally had planned for today. Nah. My analytics tell me that my best-received posts have a common theme: crotch and Brazil. Besides, everyone knows that nothing says Friday like a porta-potty post. Just wait ’til Friday.
So today, after the jump, let’s wax poetic, shall we?
(Ouch, again).
* * *
Employee teased with small penis jokes has a viable sexual harassment claim
[Whichever one of you had the voodoo doll positioned in such a way that wouldn’t allow me to pun this lede, I’m gonna git you sucka!]
In Hayes v. Erickson Air-Crane, Co. (opinion here), a male plaintiff was constantly barraged with small penis nicknames from his male co-workers ranging from “little jimi” to “tiny tim” to “dodgeball” (based on Ben Stiller’s White Goodman character). He didn’t like it, and sued.
The Court found that, based on this behavior, a jury could find that the plaintiff could potentially prevail on his sexual harassment claims because a jury may find that he was subjected to unwelcome sexual comments that were pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment.
Grab-ass in the workplace may be sexual harassment, you guys
Biting the staff doesn’t help either; even if it doesn’t leave a mark.
You see, I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.
Ha Ha! You pulled my pants down! Now I’m suing you for sexual harassment.
When offering respect in the workplace training for employees and supervisors, I emphasize that an employee who laughs at sex jokes in the workplace is the same employee who may later sue for sexual harassment.
Like Little Ladner did.
(Yes, Little Ladner)
More after the jump…
* * *
Horniest boss ever? His employee still can’t prove sexual harassment.
I’ve been searching for gold recently. So, I knew I was on to something good when I started reading this opinion last week, and wasn’t sure whether what I was reading was a sexual harassment case or a porno script.
What can I say? I like the plots.
Folks, if you click through, I promise you a great read after the jump…
* * *
Is rejecting a sexual advance, without reporting it, protected activity?
Of all employment claims presented to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, retaliation numero uno. It’s been that way since 2010.
There are three essential elements of a retaliation claim: (1) protected activity — opposition to discrimination or participation in the statutory complaint process; (2) adverse action; and (3) causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.
This post focuses on “opposition to discrimination.” Specifically, is withdrawing from what one perceives to be a sexual advance by one’s employer opposition to discrimination and, thus, a protected activity?
The answer after the jump…
* * *
An EEOC complaint is not your free pass to goof off at work
Or sexually harass your co-workers.
Unless, of course, you consider my working Hollywood manuscript: “An EEOC Complaint Is Your Free Pass to Sexually Harass.” I know, the title needs work, but with C. Thomas Howell, Tawny Kitaen real star power and a producer.
** Immediately regrets sixth shot of Drambuie with breakfast **
There’s a point to all of this, and some employer tips too, after the jump…
* * *
Repeatedly discussing your employee’s sex life with her is bad, you guys.
Duh, right?
Still, a federal appellate court recently reminded us (here) that, indeed, bad things happen when, every week for several months, a male supervisor tells his female subordinate that her husband is “not taking care of [her] in bed.”
Though not threatening, they were more than merely offensive. For a male to say to a female employee under his supervision that her husband was “not taking care of [her] in bed” is the sort of remark that can readily be found to be a solicitation for sexual relations coupled with a claim of sexual prowess and can just as readily be found to have been perceived as such by the female employee. The weekly repetition of such a remark over several weeks only served to reenforce its offensive meaning and to make sexual intimidation, ridicule, and insult a pervasive part of Desardouin’s workplace, effectively changing the terms and conditions of her employment….The allegations of repeated solicitation of sexual relations in a vulgar and humiliating manner suffice to warrant a trial.
Who are YOU to tell ME that I’m not offended by sexual harassment?!?
The original working title for the post was “The Third Circuit takes a deuce on my ‘Pottymouths’ post.” I meant it in the figurative sense. Otherwise, I would be at a loss for words with IT.
More so than usual…
{Napalms browser history}
But, fortunately, good taste and high morals — we’re all about that here at the Handbook {cough} {fart} — prevailed.
Click through to see what a federal appellate court had to say about whether a female plaintiff with an apparent propensity for the cursey-cursey may successfully pursue her sexual-harassment claims.
* * *