S
seniorjudge
Guest
Anyhow Is there nothing short of me buying a gun and putting a few rounds into these evil f'ers that i can do to stop this from going on?Eddie E said:
That's not facetious.
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Can you sue for defamation...
- Thread starter Eddie E
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
- Status
That's not facetious.
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
This thread is soon to go the way of the "OTHER" one. 
Eddie, you were already told what you could do to STOP fellow employees from using any form of derogatory remarks. I have no idea who/what/were/ you work, but in most cases there is a Human Resource Manager (somewhere) even if it is not directly in your workplace.
You have already been told any form of workplace harassment is illegal. I care not what State you are in, except maybe Idaho. Add Montana on there also.
Do a google.com search on whatever topic you are interested in and most of the time your answers will be there. Try searching the SHRM.org everything about employee relations and your problems can be answered there.
You have already been told any form of workplace harassment is illegal. I care not what State you are in, except maybe Idaho. Add Montana on there also.
Do a google.com search on whatever topic you are interested in and most of the time your answers will be there. Try searching the SHRM.org everything about employee relations and your problems can be answered there.
Why did you quit? Why not file a restraining order against these people harassing you? Belize probably has given you the best advice yet. You can hardly sue for defamation for being called gay. You need to separate the defamation from the harassment. Should calling a gay person straight be considered defamation? Here's something for you to read:Eddie E said:
Stating that someone is homosexual does not libel or slander them, particularly in light of new court decisions granting gays more rights, a federal judge has ruled.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner came as she threw out a lawsuit by a former boyfriend of pop singer Madonna who claimed he was libeled because his name appeared in a photo caption in a book about Madonna under a picture of Madonna walking with a gay man.
"In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community," she wrote in her opinion Friday.
pogo_80 said:
I quite because I was threatened on several occassions by people who thought I was a fag and thought I needed to have my "ass beaten." I went over my bosses head and called his boss and left him a message that I needed to talk about a situation going on at the site and he in turn called the crew lead who was also in on the harrassment. I went back to work for one more week and after being threatened one last time I said screw it and quit. I wasn't even looking to file a lawsuit or anything just wanted to get away from the situtation because of all the strees. I wasn't till I started my new job and they contacted them and started spreading the rumors again did I realize that I needed to do something legal to get them to stop. I wasn't aware that I could have filed a restraining order to stop them from harrassing me.
Since they are threatening physical violence, you need to contact the police and also file a restraining order. Has your current employer taken any action against this sister who is now spreading rumors about you? Try to resolve this within the company you work for and tell them you will file a restraining order against the harassers. I think sexual orientation is an EEOC protected class, but it's a tough call to say if they will help since you are in fact not gay.Eddie E said:
cbg
I'm a Northern Girl
I think sexual orientation is an EEOC protected class,
No, it isn't. I happen to believe that it should be, but it is not.
Some, but by no means all, states offer protection on the basis of sexual orientation. Texas is NOT one of them.
Edkam is incorrect in saying that any form of "harassment" in the workplace is illegal. It is only illegal if it is based on a protected characteristic, not the case in this instance. Nothing in the law says that everyone you work with has to work and play well with others.
I'm very sorry for what is happening to you but nothing you describe gives you a legal case under Federal law or in your state.
No, it isn't. I happen to believe that it should be, but it is not.
Some, but by no means all, states offer protection on the basis of sexual orientation. Texas is NOT one of them.
Edkam is incorrect in saying that any form of "harassment" in the workplace is illegal. It is only illegal if it is based on a protected characteristic, not the case in this instance. Nothing in the law says that everyone you work with has to work and play well with others.
I'm very sorry for what is happening to you but nothing you describe gives you a legal case under Federal law or in your state.
Nope I ain't wrong, read the SHRM.ORG website:
Laws Prohibiting Workplace Harassment
State and federal laws prohibit discrimination in the workplace. Some municipalities also have passed laws that expand the categories of people protected from discrimination at work. Harassment is considered one form of discrimination. Therefore, discriminatory harassment violates these laws. Most'state laws resemble the federal law and a state statute must provide at least as much protection against discrimination as the federal statute.
Some state anti-discrimination laws are even broader than the federal law. The differences between state and federal laws usually are unimportant when it comes to preventing and responding to harassment, but may affect when an employer may be held liable for harassment. For example, some states and municipalities have laws protecting employees from harassment based on sexual orientation whereas the federal law does not include sexu- al orientation among the protected categories.
Most employer policies afford broad protection under their nonharassment provisions. "Whether the harassment relates to a protected category (such as race) or an unprotected category (such as wearing striped clothing), it's good HR practice to respond appropriately to all complaints of harassment.
To violate the law, harassment must
be based on a status protected by law, such as sex, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions); and
be either quid pro quo sexual harassment or be severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment.
AND THAT BE THE TRUTH EDDIE
Laws Prohibiting Workplace Harassment
State and federal laws prohibit discrimination in the workplace. Some municipalities also have passed laws that expand the categories of people protected from discrimination at work. Harassment is considered one form of discrimination. Therefore, discriminatory harassment violates these laws. Most'state laws resemble the federal law and a state statute must provide at least as much protection against discrimination as the federal statute.
Some state anti-discrimination laws are even broader than the federal law. The differences between state and federal laws usually are unimportant when it comes to preventing and responding to harassment, but may affect when an employer may be held liable for harassment. For example, some states and municipalities have laws protecting employees from harassment based on sexual orientation whereas the federal law does not include sexu- al orientation among the protected categories.
Most employer policies afford broad protection under their nonharassment provisions. "Whether the harassment relates to a protected category (such as race) or an unprotected category (such as wearing striped clothing), it's good HR practice to respond appropriately to all complaints of harassment.
To violate the law, harassment must
be based on a status protected by law, such as sex, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions); and
be either quid pro quo sexual harassment or be severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment.
AND THAT BE THE TRUTH EDDIE
cbg
I'm a Northern Girl
I spend considerable time on the SHRM website, Eddie, and I stand by my answer.
DISCRIMINATORY harassment is illegal. Not all harassment is discriminatory, only that which is based on a protected characteristic. It even says so in your quote.
Did you read what you posted?
DISCRIMINATORY harassment is illegal. Not all harassment is discriminatory, only that which is based on a protected characteristic. It even says so in your quote.
Did you read what you posted?
Harassment occurs when the discriminatory behavior is the manner in which an employee is treated or spoken to, rather than the terms and conditions of employment. As defined above, to be unlawful, harassment must be severe or pervasive. Unlawful harassment based on race often occurs in the form of racial epithets and the telling of jokes that are dis- respectful to a racial or ethnic group. As explained above, unless it is severe, a single instance of joke-telling or a single use of an epithet probably is insufficient to make the harassment meet the criteria for being unlawful. There must be a pattern, persistence, or severity to make the harassing behavior unlawful, but harassment need not rise to a standard of unlawfulness to be unacceptable, in the workplace.
Sexual harassment, simply defined, is when the harassment is sexual, such as sexual jokes, innuendos, requests for dates, and so forth. The harassment can be verbal, physical, or even visual. Some examples of sexual harassment include pressure for sexual favors, touching, cornering, suggestive letters or calls, pressure for dates, suggestive looks, sexual teasing, jokes, remarks, and gestures.
The two elements that must be present for behavior to constitute sexual harassment are
the behavior must be unwelcome, and
the behavior must be of a sexual nature.
The law defines sexual harassment in very specific terms. As stated above, legal liability for sexual harassment is limited to specific situations; however, an employer must necessarily use a broader definition in policies and procedures in order to prevent offensive behavior.
Legal Definition of Sexual Harassment
In the 1980s the EEOC issued guidelines defining sexual harassment. The guidelines are found at 29 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1604.11. In 1986 the United States Supreme Court approved this defini- tion in Meritor Savings Bank -v- Vinson. Since then, this definition has been quoted frequently as the legal definition of sexual harassment. It appears in countless court decisions and often is quoted in employer The definition is "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when
submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
The first two prongs of this three-pronged definition refer to quid pro quo harassment. The third prong refers to the "hostile work environment" type of harassment. Of course, some claims of sexual harassment will include allegations of both quid pro quo harassment and hostile work environment harassment.
Gender-Based Harassment Gender-based harassment (also called "sex-based harassment") is due to the employee's gender but is not overtly sexual. Examples may include behavior like excluding women from meetings, making statements that demean women, teasing women about not being as strong as men, or putting frogs in a woman's locker. This sort of harassment often happens when people of one gender work in an environment predominately composed of people of the other gender -- such as a woman working on a con- struction crew or a male nurse.
Same-Sex Sexual Harassment
Harassment is conduct; the gender of the parties involved is irrelevant. Most workplace harassment is male to female. According to EEOC statistics, in 1992, males filed 9.1% of the sexual harassment charges that were filed with the EEOC and state and local Fair Employment Practices agencies around the country. This figure has increased slightly every year. In 2001 the percentage of charges filed by men was 13.7%. The percentage reflects both societal norms (men usually are expected to be the aggressor in intimate relations) and workplace norms (men usually have more organizational power than women). As these norms change, the way sexual harassment is played out at work probably will also change.
Harassment also occurs from females to males, males to males, and females to females. All these forms of harassment are prohibited and the same standards should be applied to allegations of same-sex sexual harassment as to harassment between a male and a female. Same-sex harassment does not depend on the sexual orientation of any party. For example, a heterosexual male could be harassed by another heterosexual male and it could still constitute sexual harassment.
In Oncale -v- Sundowner Offsbore Servs., Inc., the Supreme Court determined that same-sex sexual harassment violates antidiscrimination laws when it is motivated by the individual's gender. It is difficult to predict when same-sex sexual harassment will be considered based on gender as opposed to some other reason. Therefore, the investigator should not be concerned with what a court of law will do but rather should focus on whether the behavior violates work rules prohibiting harassment. Also, remember that while most sexual harassment is male to female, a female can harass a male.
Impact versus Intent In harassment situations the harassment is evaluated based on the recipient's response rather than the perpetrator's intentions. If a reasonable person would find the conduct offensive, the fact that the perpetrator would not does not absolve that individual of responsibility. An employer can be held liable for harassrment (and actions can violate an employer's rules) even if the person engaging in the behavior meant no harm. This is why some experts in the field say the issue is the impact rather than the intent.
of course, not all actions that are considered harassment are equally serious. A boorish individual who is trying to amuse but instead offends generally will not be disciplined as severely as someone who intentionally tries to hurt someone. Intent is a relevant factor that the investigate want to understand, to the extent possible, so that the actions can be placed in the proper context. But the absence of any bad intent does not absolve employees of responsibility for violating employer rules against harassment. This concept clearly applies in third-party harassment situations, which are discussed next.
Third-party Harassment
Third-party harassment occurs when two individuals engage in consensual talk or conduct that affects a third party who does not welcome the behavior. This kind of harassment generally comes up in the context of sexual harassment when two or more co-workers enjoy engaging in sexual joking or conversation and do so with others present. While this sort of behavior seldom is severe and may not involve a specific target for the harassment, it can contribute to an environment of harassment because one or more of the noninvolved co-workers may become offended. Also, the conduct clearly is unprofessional. Even though the conduct is welcome between the participants, it should be stopped.
Retaliation
When a person reports or participates in someone else's report of harassment, he or she is protected from any form of retaliation. In order to violate the law, the retaliation must meet a certain legal threshold. But it is difficult to predict what a court will do. It is good HR practice to make sure all employees know retaliation is prohibited and to promptly respond to any complaint of retaliation. Many sexual harassment lawsuits come about because of the complainant's perception that the employer retaliated against him or her after he or she brought forward the complaint. The retaliation may take the form of being mistreated (such as shunned by co-workers) or it may be a demotion or termination. Remember, there need not be a determination that unlawful harassment has occurred for the anti-retaliation provisions to apply.
Sexual harassment, simply defined, is when the harassment is sexual, such as sexual jokes, innuendos, requests for dates, and so forth. The harassment can be verbal, physical, or even visual. Some examples of sexual harassment include pressure for sexual favors, touching, cornering, suggestive letters or calls, pressure for dates, suggestive looks, sexual teasing, jokes, remarks, and gestures.
The two elements that must be present for behavior to constitute sexual harassment are
the behavior must be unwelcome, and
the behavior must be of a sexual nature.
The law defines sexual harassment in very specific terms. As stated above, legal liability for sexual harassment is limited to specific situations; however, an employer must necessarily use a broader definition in policies and procedures in order to prevent offensive behavior.
Legal Definition of Sexual Harassment
In the 1980s the EEOC issued guidelines defining sexual harassment. The guidelines are found at 29 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1604.11. In 1986 the United States Supreme Court approved this defini- tion in Meritor Savings Bank -v- Vinson. Since then, this definition has been quoted frequently as the legal definition of sexual harassment. It appears in countless court decisions and often is quoted in employer The definition is "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when
submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
The first two prongs of this three-pronged definition refer to quid pro quo harassment. The third prong refers to the "hostile work environment" type of harassment. Of course, some claims of sexual harassment will include allegations of both quid pro quo harassment and hostile work environment harassment.
Gender-Based Harassment Gender-based harassment (also called "sex-based harassment") is due to the employee's gender but is not overtly sexual. Examples may include behavior like excluding women from meetings, making statements that demean women, teasing women about not being as strong as men, or putting frogs in a woman's locker. This sort of harassment often happens when people of one gender work in an environment predominately composed of people of the other gender -- such as a woman working on a con- struction crew or a male nurse.
Same-Sex Sexual Harassment
Harassment is conduct; the gender of the parties involved is irrelevant. Most workplace harassment is male to female. According to EEOC statistics, in 1992, males filed 9.1% of the sexual harassment charges that were filed with the EEOC and state and local Fair Employment Practices agencies around the country. This figure has increased slightly every year. In 2001 the percentage of charges filed by men was 13.7%. The percentage reflects both societal norms (men usually are expected to be the aggressor in intimate relations) and workplace norms (men usually have more organizational power than women). As these norms change, the way sexual harassment is played out at work probably will also change.
Harassment also occurs from females to males, males to males, and females to females. All these forms of harassment are prohibited and the same standards should be applied to allegations of same-sex sexual harassment as to harassment between a male and a female. Same-sex harassment does not depend on the sexual orientation of any party. For example, a heterosexual male could be harassed by another heterosexual male and it could still constitute sexual harassment.
In Oncale -v- Sundowner Offsbore Servs., Inc., the Supreme Court determined that same-sex sexual harassment violates antidiscrimination laws when it is motivated by the individual's gender. It is difficult to predict when same-sex sexual harassment will be considered based on gender as opposed to some other reason. Therefore, the investigator should not be concerned with what a court of law will do but rather should focus on whether the behavior violates work rules prohibiting harassment. Also, remember that while most sexual harassment is male to female, a female can harass a male.
Impact versus Intent In harassment situations the harassment is evaluated based on the recipient's response rather than the perpetrator's intentions. If a reasonable person would find the conduct offensive, the fact that the perpetrator would not does not absolve that individual of responsibility. An employer can be held liable for harassrment (and actions can violate an employer's rules) even if the person engaging in the behavior meant no harm. This is why some experts in the field say the issue is the impact rather than the intent.
of course, not all actions that are considered harassment are equally serious. A boorish individual who is trying to amuse but instead offends generally will not be disciplined as severely as someone who intentionally tries to hurt someone. Intent is a relevant factor that the investigate want to understand, to the extent possible, so that the actions can be placed in the proper context. But the absence of any bad intent does not absolve employees of responsibility for violating employer rules against harassment. This concept clearly applies in third-party harassment situations, which are discussed next.
Third-party Harassment
Third-party harassment occurs when two individuals engage in consensual talk or conduct that affects a third party who does not welcome the behavior. This kind of harassment generally comes up in the context of sexual harassment when two or more co-workers enjoy engaging in sexual joking or conversation and do so with others present. While this sort of behavior seldom is severe and may not involve a specific target for the harassment, it can contribute to an environment of harassment because one or more of the noninvolved co-workers may become offended. Also, the conduct clearly is unprofessional. Even though the conduct is welcome between the participants, it should be stopped.
Retaliation
When a person reports or participates in someone else's report of harassment, he or she is protected from any form of retaliation. In order to violate the law, the retaliation must meet a certain legal threshold. But it is difficult to predict what a court will do. It is good HR practice to make sure all employees know retaliation is prohibited and to promptly respond to any complaint of retaliation. Many sexual harassment lawsuits come about because of the complainant's perception that the employer retaliated against him or her after he or she brought forward the complaint. The retaliation may take the form of being mistreated (such as shunned by co-workers) or it may be a demotion or termination. Remember, there need not be a determination that unlawful harassment has occurred for the anti-retaliation provisions to apply.
Unfortunately Eddie you should never have left your old job and moved into a new. You should have stayed and documented with management, h/r department the harassment from fellow employees. Many of the "sexual harassment federal laws" also cover the issues you are dealing with. Who cares if you are gay or not? Federal Laws protect against verbal abuse and harassment. EEOC is a start. Texas Department of Labor would be a help. But for your own sake document ever time a situation happens. File a grievance against any employee that violates your rights. This is normally done with a Human Resource Manager, or your direct supervisor. Keep records, because if you cannot perform your job because of the harassment you are enduring, you have a case. Mental abuse is just as bad as sexual.
Read the SHRM.ORG website and ask Texas Department of Labor what is legal in your State. What you have described here is covered under Federal laws, and as stated-various State laws are even more enforceable.
Good Luck Eddie, and keep good records. If you ever speak to a real attorney she/him will want a chronological outline documenting when the incidents started, what was said, what you said, what you did. Protect yourself now.
Read the SHRM.ORG website and ask Texas Department of Labor what is legal in your State. What you have described here is covered under Federal laws, and as stated-various State laws are even more enforceable.
Good Luck Eddie, and keep good records. If you ever speak to a real attorney she/him will want a chronological outline documenting when the incidents started, what was said, what you said, what you did. Protect yourself now.
cbg
I'm a Northern Girl
Okay, I see where you're going with this now, Edkam. Yes, it's possible that if you take this in the direction of a sexual harassment claim, it might qualify. I thought you were looking for a discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation claim, and that wouldn't fly in Texas or under Federal law.
I don't think it's as much of a slam-dunk as you do, but I agree that if you're looking at it in that light it's at least a possibility.
I don't think it's as much of a slam-dunk as you do, but I agree that if you're looking at it in that light it's at least a possibility.
- Status
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">