Various sexual harassment items
My backlogged items include several relating to sexual harassment, so I’m combining them here.
I have always felt it was appropriate — and important — for employers to enforce reasonable dress codes as a means of sexual harassment prevention.
I’ve said this at many a seminar, always expecting someone to call me a male chauvinist and assert that women should be able to wear whatever they want without being harassed.
My response would be that in an ideal world this might be true, but I’ve seen too many cases involving crude remarks and behavior clearly inspired by unnecessarily revealing clothing, and see this as a practical step that should be taken.
So I was delighted to read the following story from KRNV in Reno: “Sexual harassment expert approves of high school dress codes”
Inappropriate dress has resulted in the suspension of nearly 100 students at Sparks schools this year and now a professional is telling parents just how serious breaking the dress code can be.
Peggy Weeks is a national trainer on sexual harassment. Weeks says she approves of Reed High’s approach. “Reed has a really good approach, they say appropriate dress for the place, and that’s what they’re working toward.”
Weeks speaks all over the country on sexual harassment and attire. . . [S]he’s talking to parents and students . . . telling them strict dress codes are actually needed by law. “Stopping sexual harassment is a legal obligation of the school and a piece of it is what people wear.” . .
[She says:] “If children aren’t busy with trying to de-pants each other, busy trying to pinch each other, making some kind of a comment about what somebody’s wearing they might be trying to concentrate on learning.” . . .
The facts of innumerable litigated sexual harassment cases make clear the above applies equally to adults in the workplace, who need to concentrate on working.
Speaking of “trying to de-pants each other,” such conduct involving a 21-year-old male and a teenage girl was one of the many unfortunate allegations in a case recently decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Hulsey v. Pride Restaurants, (11th Cir. 4/27/04) The conduct, culminating in the teenage plaintiff’s termination by the assistant manager who harassed her, was summarized as follows:
[The manager's] conduct was frequent, occurring at least 18 times during the approximately 2 to 2-1/2 weeks between his initial attempt to get Hulsey to date him and her termination on August 16, 2001. His conduct was severe, involving many direct as well as indirect propositions for sex. It included following her into the restroom, and repeated attempts to touch her breasts, place his hands down her pants, and pull off her pants. It included enlisting the assistance of others to hold her while he attempted to grope her. Read more
Folks, this stuff goes on when you put a 21 year old male in charge of female teenage employees at a fast food restaurant and give him the authority to terminate. There is absolutely no reason a guy like this– or any first level supervisor – should have such authority.
The termination prevented the employer from being able to successfully raise the affirmative defense to supervisory harassment. The defense would have been well supported by the facts, since the plaintiff made no complaint until after she had been fired.
Speaking of sexual-harassment at Burger King, AP (via the Insurance Journal) reported in late April (I’m late again!) on a different case: Burger King Facing Sex Harassment Charges
A sexual harassment lawsuit against Carrols Corp. has grown from one accuser six years ago to 511 current and former Burger King workers in 13 states. Officials at Syracuse, N.Y.-based Carrols say the large number of accusers is a result of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission going on a “fishing expedition” with solicitation letters to as many as 175,000 former workers. . . .
The EEOC’s lawsuit against Carrols is the largest sexual harassment case the agency has ever handled . . .
Sexual harassment claims at more than half of Carrols’ 351 Burger King restaurants in 13 states have been filed with the EEOC from the period 1994 to 2002 . . .
Carrols officials say the number of claims is minuscule compared with the 250,000 people who worked at the restaurants over that period. . . The company fired at least 42 workers for sexual harassment during the time studied by the EEOC. . .
The numbers aren’t as significant as the “quality” of the claims, [the EEOC] said. 47 percent of the claims alleged jokes or gestures; 37 percent bumping or touching; 10 percent physical aggression, including the intentional contact of sexual organs; and 6.3 percent sexual advances.
I love this comment from a reader:
Have you every been in a fast food joint? If so, you would have noticed that they make very efficent use of space. One of these outcomes is bumping and touching while waiting on customers. How do I know. I have one of their Training Managers working for me. She said if bumping and touches while serving patrons is sexual harrashment, then all employees should be in the law suit.
Of course, that physical proximity creates opportunity that can readily be abused, as well as plenty of accidental contact. It’s a tough situation.
As a reminder that the EEOC often settles sexual harassment cases for relatively small amounts, less than most plaintiffs expect, see this article from KATV (Little Rock): “Hospital Confirms Consent Decree in Sexual Harassment Case”
[The] hospital . . . will pay a nurse $43,500 in . . . a sexual harassment lawsuit. . .
The U.S. Equal Employment Commission . . . announced . . . that [the] U.S. District Judge . . . approved the consent decree . . .
The suit alleged [the nurse] and other women were subjected to unwanted sexual advances and touching . . . Read more
Finally, a case that should have been kicked out on summary judgment, but for some reason went to trial, resulting in a defense verdict (yes, it does happen), as reported in the Bismarck Tribune (AP): “Jury rejects woman’s harassment claims”
A federal court jury has rejected the sexual harassment claims of a former . . . High School cook.
Jurors deliberated about two hours . . . The trial lasted seven days.
[The plaintiff claimed] the school’s . . . principal . . . sexually harassed her for 12 years. . . She claimed [he] sexually harassed her about 100 times in the school’s “wide-open” kitchen. Yet none of her co-workers, other school staff or students reported seeing inappropriate behavior . . . An independent investigator who interviewed [her] co-workers and other school employees found no evidence supporting [her] claims. . .
[The defense]said [she] was bitter about being suspended for 20 days for stealing food from the kitchen.
I’d say those facts support summary judgment based on the affirmative defense — she failed to complain for 12 years, and when she did complain, an independent investigator was hired and performed a thorough investigation.
Sphere: Related ContentIf you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed or by email.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment