Various harassment items
March 31, 2004Here are a number of things I collected recently relating to harassment claims.
First, the latest Hooters case.
Over the weekend, CNN reported: “Police: 200 Hooters applicants taped undressing”
WEST COVINA, California (AP) — Nearly 200 women who applied for jobs at a Hooters restaurant were secretly videotaped in a trailer while they undressed to put on a Hooters uniform . . . Authorities raided the trailer last month and seized a computer that held 180 digital videos of the women, ages 17-25 . . . .Like night follows day, by Wednesday the inevitable civil lawsuit was reported: “Hooters sued for spying on women; Five job applicants sue after police find videos manager took of women changing into uniforms” (CNN/Money - Reuters)
Hooters is a national chain known for its scantily clad waitresses, who wear low-cut tank tops and shorts.
Justin Johl, a lawyer for Hooters, said the company was outraged and was conducting its own investigation.
Five women who say they were secretly videotaped naked or undressing while they applied for jobs at a Los Angeles area Hooters sued the restaurant chain Tuesday.Hooters of America seems like it would be fairly well insulated from this outrageous alleged conduct. Clearly it was not authorized and not within the scope of the manager’s employment. The franchise relationship should provide further legal insulation.
The lawsuit comes as police in the Los Angeles suburb of West Covina investigate 180 video files seized from the personal computer of a former Hooters manager that show job applicants changing into the chain’s body-hugging uniforms. . .
[The suit] claim[s] invasion of privacy and employment discrimination.
Mike McNeil, a spokesman for Hooters of America, Inc., said that the surreptitious taping was “clearly an instance of an individual acting outside the scope of the company’s policies as well as the law.”
McNeil said Hooters was not a target of the investigation and had been commended by police for their cooperation, adding that he did not understand what lawyer Gloria Allred, who represents the plaintiffs, hoped to gain by the lawsuit.
“Thanks to our cooperation and policies and swift movement in this case, these images were not published,” McNeil said. . . . He added that the West Covina restaurant was a franchise and not owned by Hooters of America.
But there is a lesson here about the “slippery slope” of sexual harassment. Hooters has had problems in this area before (though not so severe, to my knowledge); see Hooters of America, Inc. v. Phillips, 173 F.3d 933 (4th Cir. 1999) (indicating unsuccessful effort to channel harassment complaint to mandatory arbitration).
It is scarcely surprising that individuals inclined to engage in inappropriate sexual behavior are attracted (as employees as well as customers) to a company that sells hot young bodies and pretty faces as much as — or more than — great food. I would hope and expect that for this reason the company has an aggressive posture towards harassment prevention and response.
But it seems that it would be hard to avoid sending a double message — women are sex objects when it comes to attracting business (”where would Hooters be without our world-famous Hooters girls?”), but don’t treat them as sex objects.
Next, Newsday.com (Carrie Mason-Draffen) reports a big harassment award on Long Island: “$1.6M award for LI women”
[The] lawsuit detailed a pattern of sexual harassment by [a] manager . . . that included lewd remarks, groping and pressure for dates and sex. The women said when they complained, the company did nothing or retaliated. . . .This is typical — juries are likely to focus on the severity of behavior, and may ignore the fine points of the law when it comes to determining whether the employer should be liable for such behavior (which is far from automatic).
Judge Arthur Spatt is almost certain to reduce the $980,000 in punitive damages, which are covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That act limits plaintiffs’ punitive-damage award based on a company’s size.
But the jury, with its sizable award, including about $620,000 in compensatory damages, showed that it largely agreed with the plaintiffs about what took place . . . . [actually, both compensatory and punitive damages combined are subject to limits based on the company's size]
[The defense attorney] said “We believe that the jury was incorrect,” [and] . . . the company’s anti-sexual harassment policy “showed that we don’t condone any inappropriate behavior.”
But the jury award reflected the outrageous behavior, according to the plaintiffs’ co-counsel . . . .
On the other hand, it is not likely the judge would have let the case go to trial had there not been some basis for employer liability, most likely significant evidence of the company’s failure to respond appropriately to complaints.
It’s just not enough to have a policy that shows a company does not condone sexual harassment, it must show this through its actions, particularly when it learns there may be problems.
Finally, this bizarre case from Reuters: “Workers Suing Over Man in See-Through Shorts”
SANTA FE, N.M. (Reuters) - Former employees of Whole Foods Market have sued the natural foods supermarket operator, saying it did not take proper action to prevent a male customer from parading through a Santa Fe store wearing white, see-through biking shorts with no underwear.This sounds like probably a loser for these women, though I guess it depends on how see-through those shorts really were, and how often the customer visited in such attire. There’s a difference between the sexes — I doubt you’d find men suing because a female customer wore excessively revealing clothing.
Maria Bautista and seven other plaintiffs are suing under New Mexico’s Human Rights Act, saying the store fostered an environment of discrimination and sexual harassment that caused them emotional distress. . . .
They . . . claim the store ignored their complaints about a middle-aged man in the see-through, body-hugging shorts and fired one of them in retaliation for her complaint.
Seriously, it does point out that an employer has a responsibility for protecting employees against harassment by customers and other third parties, not just other employees.
Related Posts
The long and short of the "lawsuit lottery" in sexual harassment cases
When Bullying Becomes A Case of Sexual Harassment
Wal-Mart sex discrimination class action update
Yet Another Reason to Avoid "Affairs of the Heart" At Work
Sexual harassment editorial misses the mark
`Sphere: Related Content`
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, March 31st, 2004 at 6:59 pm and is filed under General.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
If you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below.