Same-sex harassers get equal time; after 'Oncale,' employers should consider implementing sexual harassment policies that deal with same-gender perpetrators
Article Abstract:
Women make most sexual harassment claims and allege opposite-gender sexual harassment, but same-gender sexual harassment complaints in the American workplace are growing. Sexual harassment complaints by men have tripled since 1991 and now make up 11.6% of cases reported to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and many of these claims involve alleged same-gender sexual harassment. US corporations should institute policies to protect against same-sex sexual harassment claims in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. Guidelines for such a policy are listed.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Lecherous clients may be costly for companies; employers may be subject to lawsuits when customers sexually harass employees
Article Abstract:
Employers have little judicial guidance about complaints of sexual harassment of employees by customers or clients. 1990 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Sex Bias Guidelines find employer liability for sexual harassment of employees by non-employees if the employer should know of the conduct and fails to try to correct it promptly. In spite of the EEOC position that such harassment is a Title VII violation, only a few courts have spoken on the issue and these send employers mixed messages. Some of the decisions are discussed.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Modifying employee benefits; Third Circuit places employers on a slippery slope in disclosing amendments to benefits plans
Article Abstract:
A US Court of Appeals for the 3d Circuit decision in Fischer v. Philadelphia Electric tried to offer guidance to employers considering benefit plan changes on their disclosure duties to employees but failed to establish a bright line rule. The court tried to balance the employee's right to know with the employer's need to run the business, ruling that employer's should answer questions truthfully and completely without necessarily revealing all internal deliberations. Fischer poses much uncertainty for plan administrators.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: The truth of equality; disabled persons are equally endowed with inalienable rights. Colorado's Amendment 2 blocked; court says referendum barring gay-rights laws denies equal protection
- Abstracts: TUPE requires employee's knowledge of transfer. Fundamental changes in business preclude transfer. Contracting-out and contracting-in covered by TUPE
- Abstracts: Dismissing insurance coverage actions in federal court for want of supplemental subject matter jurisdiction. Homeowners in the workplace: are their torts covered? The business pursuits exclusion
- Abstracts: Trade secrets in Illinois. Doe v. City of Belleville: should the employer differentiate between horseplay and same-sex sexual harassment?
- Abstracts: Gang busters; prosecutors are turning to powerful federal statutes and some handy local ordinances to stop criminal gangs in their tracks