classic sexual harrassment, initial questions

[tmi100]

My question relates to Florida.

Background:
I have a friend I'll call Jane that is working on a cruise ship off of Hawaii. Her (my friend's) manager is having a sexual relationship with an employee (Linda), who's my friend's friend. To be more clear, two employees are friends working on this cruise and the one that is not my friend (Linda) is having an affair with the boss (who I'll call John). In this job, crew mates aren't even supposed to have relationships. Recently Linda and the manager started fighting, and the manager got Jane's cabin phone number from Linda. He then called Jane during off-hours and requested that she come to his cabin. Jane said that's not a good idea, and the John said "bring your uniform and I'll cover for you if you're late." Jane refused and did not go but John then lied to Linda and said that Jane did agree to come to his cabin. He apparently said this to get back at and anger Linda. Linda then came to Jane's cabin, banging on her door and screaming at her waking her roommates and neighbors up.

John has been pressuring Jane to have a sexual relationship by saying that he would get her promotions into favored jobs, that he would get her a job at any specialty restaurant that she wants to work in on the cruise ship, told her that he's the one that got her the job she's at now, and told her that he can give her favors like enabling her to take days off.

Jane has notified human resources about it and they said they're taking it seriously and will investigate. My question is, what is Jane's employer supposed to do and under what conditions should Jane take legal action? Should she get a lawyer? If they fire John is Jane still entitled compensation, like for example the promotions that were tied to sexual demands by John?

Thank you for any help.


edit: I'm asking this because she's on a cruise ship working long hours and can't access the web easily but wants to know what she can do.

 

[cbg]

Jane's employer is supposed to do exactly what they are doing; investigate. Their only obligation is to make the offensive behavior stop. They do not need to fire him or keep them separate or tell Jane what action has been taken. They only need to make the harassment cease.

At the present time, Jane has no need to take legal action. She needs to give HR a chance to do their jobs. If the offensive behavior does not stop after their investigation is complete, then she can file a complaint with the EEOC. ONLY after she has been issued a right to sue letter from the EEOC can she take any legal action.

Jane is not "entitled" to any compensation.

 

[tmi100]

Thanks, I'm still confused though after reading about it. On this site http://www3.uakron.edu/lawrev/robert1.html quid pro quo sexual harrassment is described as something that the company is always liable for as opposed to a hostile work environment.

Also the FAQ on this site has this to say:

http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs/mesg.cgi?l=all&c=3&f=1

Question:
What are my remedies in a quid pro quo sexual harassment case?
Answer:
The law provides that you may recover damages from your employer once you have proved that you were deprived of a job benefit because you refused to comply with your supervisor's sexual demands. But before you can recover from your employer, you must demonstrate that the harasser is someone with authority who can affect your employment opportunities. You may also have to prove that the sexual conduct was unwelcome.

So I don't fully understand, but I'll tell her to wait on the results of their internal investigation.

 

[cbg]

If you are interpreting these sites to be saying that EVEN IF the company takes action to make the harassing behavior stop (and it does indeed stop), they are still liable and can be sued, you are misreading them.

 

[tmi100]

While that position makes sense, looking at Figure 1 at the botom of the first link I gave on the U of Akron's site I don't see how I can be misreading it. They may have made a mistake.

Also I'm interested in what people more knowledgeable than me think the appropriate corrective action should be in this case. From my perspective anything short of firing this guy would be failing to act effectively to stop it.

 

[cbg]

In the first link you provided, read the section on Enforcing Policy. If the employer could always be sued regardless of what action was taken, why would they be told how to enforce their policies to protect themselves? Why would they even bother, if they could be sued no matter what they did?

As far as the second site is concerned, I've seen a great deal of misinformation on that site.

 

[tmi100]

The enforcement section seems to apply to 'hostile work environment' claims. The "When is the Employer Liable?" section above Figure 1 supports that I'm reading it right since it implies that employers are automatically liable for their supervisors' behavior.

Basically my question is what specifically happens or can be legally made to happen in quid pro quo cases, in contrast to 'hostile work environment' cases which seem like different breeds.

edit:
My guess would be that the company should compensate Jane themselves after finding that there was quid pro quo harrassment, after their own investigation.

 

[cbg]

The law is not going to require the company to automatically compensate Jane.

You seem to be assuming that the phrase "automatically liable" means that no matter what the employer says or does, they can be sued. That is NOT the case. Read the US Supreme Court case, Burlington v. Ellerth, which clearly gives the employer an affirmative defense when they take reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior. Although the case in question was a hostile environment and not a quid pro quo case, you will find as you research that the affirmative defense is valid for both types of cases.

You might also take a look at the following from the EEOC website (emphasis mine):

Q. If an employee complains to management about harassment, should he or she wait for management to complete the investigation before filing a charge with EEOC?
A. It may make sense to wait to see if management corrects the harassment before filing a charge. However, if management does not act promptly to investigate the complaint and undertake corrective action, then it may be appropriate to file a charge.

Clearly if management DOES investigate promptly and take corrective action, no charge is necessary.

 

[mitousmom]

Basically my question is what specifically happens or can be legally made to happen in quid pro quo cases, in contrast to 'hostile work environment' cases which seem like different breeds.

edit:
My guess would be that the company should compensate Jane themselves after finding that there was quid pro quo harrassment, after their own investigation.

Based on the information you have provided, there hasn't been quid pro quo sexual harassment for which the employer is liable. The manager has simply informed Jane of what he will do if she has relationship with him; he hasn't taken any personnel action against her because she hasn't.

This is from EEOC's website on the subject:

When is an employer legally responsible for harassment by a supervisor?

An employer is always responsible for harassment by a supervisor that culminated in a tangible employment action. If the harassment did not lead to a tangible employment action, the employer is liable unless it proves that: 1) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment; and 2) the employee unreasonably failed to complain to management or to avoid harm otherwise.

A "tangible employment action" means a significant change in employment status. Examples include hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, undesirable reassignment, a decision causing a significant change in benefits, compensation decisions, and work assignment.​

For whom does Jane work? Does she work for a U.S. employer? Some cruise ships are foreign vessels operating in international waters, even though they have port privileges in the US?

 

[tmi100]

She works for a cruise line that is headquartered in Miami. I see again that liability comes down to whether the employer's own corrective action stops further harrassment, which I'll tell Jane to be aware of, thanks.

edit: It seems that they might be firing the guy soon so that seems to be that.