Blog About: Company’s Prompt Reaction to Noose Precludes Liability for Racial Discrimination.

Related Articles

Reversing summary judgment in favor of the employer on an employee’ s racial and sexual harassment claims, the federal appeals court in Richmond has ruled that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission presented sufficient evidence of harassment, and of the employer’ s failure to remedy the alleged harassment, that the case should go to a jury. EEOC v. Central Wholesalers, Inc., No. 08-1181 (4th Cir. Jul. 21, 2009). The Court found that based on the facts construed most favorably to the plaintiff, as is appropriate in passing on summary judgment, a jury could conclude that the employer failed to respond in a timely manner to the employee’ s complaints with actions reasonably calculated to end the harassment. The employer’ s response, therefore, was “not sufficient … to warrant summ...

The basis of an employers liability for a claim of hostile work environment under Title VII depends upon whether the harasser is the complainants supervisor or merely a co-worker. When a hostile work environment is created by a co-worker, the employer is liable only if the employer failed to provide an avenue for reporting the harassment, or if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment but failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action. Under Title VII, an employer knew or should have known about workplace harassment if management level employees had actual or constructive knowledge about the existence of a sexually hostile environment. Therefore, once a management level emp...

The basis of an employer’s liability for a claim of hostile work environment under Title VII depends upon whether the harasser is the complainant’s supervisor or merely a co-worker. When a hostile work environment is created by a co-worker, the employer is liable only if the employer failed to provide an avenue for reporting the harassment, or if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment but failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action. Under Title VII, an employer “knew or should have known” about workplace harassment if “management level employees had actual or constructive knowledge about the existence of a sexually hostile environment.” Therefore, once a manageme...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently ruled in Duch v. Jakubek, 2009 WL 4421267 (2d Cir. 2009), that a jury reasonably could find that a supervisor who ignored facts regarding suspected workplace sexual harassment had constructive knowledge of the harassment and, thereby, exposed his employer to liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Determining that a postal worker did not establish he suffered any material adverse employment action when his employer allegedly allowed female employees to take longer coffee breaks than he was permitted, and that his retaliation claims were not substantial, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston has reversed a $365,000 judgment in favor of an employee in a Title VII gender discrimination and retaliation case.\n

\n

More news & reviews:

Leave your comment

Name:

Comment:

What is My Employment Law?

Every hour, we bring the best news and advice from dozens of blogs and sites to one place for our community of experts and enthusiasts to vote on what's most interesting each day. Join the conversation and submit an article for publication on My Employment Law!

Put fresh news from My Employment Law on your site

Embed our widget to your blog or site and get the latest headlines from My Employment Law automatically updated each hour.

Click to highlight and press Ctrl+C to copy

Widget preview:

Powered by: MyEmploymentLaw

What's Hot Today

Contact Us - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy