Co-Worker Sexual Harassment, and Co-Worker (Harasser) Retaliation...

[kmckenn]

What is the name of your state? Ohio, however... this is a Federal Case.

An employee is being sexually harassed by a co-worker, the employee complains to the company's HR about the harassment, the company investigates and finds the complaint to be legitimate. The harassing co-worker is disciplined, but gets extremely hostile with the complaining employee for being the reason they got in disciplined, and vowed their life to getting even with them for it... The harasser began alleging company rule/policy violations on the complaining employees part to management of the company... What protection does the complaining employee have from the retaliatiatory actions of a co-worker the had complained about?

On the face, it appears to be a blatant violation of any NON-RETALIATION statute or policy. Finding case law to support that an EMPLOYEE who was the HARASSER, and that EMPLOYEE can not retaliate against the complaintant is difficult to find.

 

[mlane58]

Thanks for the story but whats your question?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Thanks for the story but whats your question?

Or a better question is, which professor handed you this assignment?

 

[kmckenn]

Apologies, I thought the implied question was obvious...

Is co-worker (harasser) "retaliation" against the complaintant, cooperatively with managment/supervision, unlawful?

IF so, on what legal basis is the statement made, other than OPINION.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Apologies, I thought the implied question was obvious...

Is co-worker (harasser) "retaliation" against the complaintant, cooperatively with managment/supervision, unlawful?

IF so, on what legal basis is the statement made, other than OPINION.

We don't do HOMEWORK!

 

[fairisfair]

Apologies, I thought the implied question was obvious...

Is co-worker (harasser) "retaliation" against the complaintant, cooperatively with managment/supervision, unlawful?

IF so, on what legal basis is the statement made, other than OPINION.

Possible case?
http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/employment/madeja.html

 

[kmckenn]

Apologies again Breeze... I thought you were well versed enough that you might actually know this without having to do homework... Apologies for my ignorance, in over estimating your apptitudes.

But I do now know, how well versed you are at berating posts... you go boy...

 

[mitousmom]

The retaliation provisions of the federal anti-discrimination laws state that an employer can't retaliate against an employee because she complained about behavior that violates the anti-discrimination laws. In the situation you cite, it's not the employer but the alleged harasser who is attempting to retaliate against the employee who complained about sexual harassment (SH). The alleged harasser can report whatever he wants to management about the employee and as long as management doesn't take any action against the employee because she complained about SH, there is no violation of the retaliation provisions of the anti-discrimination laws.

For example, the alleged harasser accurately reports to management that the employee was late for work. The employer's practice is to penalize employees who report to work late. If the employer penalizes the employee who complained about SH for being late, there is no violation of the retaliation provisions of the anti-discrimination laws. The employer is not penalizing the employee because she complained about SH, but because it received an accurate report that she was late. That the report came from someone who was mad at the employee because she complained about him, is really irrelevant.

 

[kmckenn]

Very interesting.... even though it is based on retaliatory motive.

"Retaliate - To repay in kind"

If a harasser, were to be subjected to adverse employment action (say for example, terminated) because of a SH complaint filed against them, then became very angry and wanted to "repay in kind" what had been done to them (IE - "Retaliate"), and make multiple allegations against the person who had filed the SH complaint, in a clear attempt to "repay in kind" (IE - "Retaliate"), what exactly is a harasser NOT allowed to do by definition of a "NON-RETALIATION" policy/law in an employment setting? Do mere "allegations" give the employer a "BLANK CHECK" to seek out ANY potential infractions?

Perhaps an employer, desiring to retaliate against the SH complaintant, could/would tell the harasser... "*cough*... ummm... ya know there Mr. Harasser, we are not allowed to retaliate against Ms. Complaintant.... *BUT*... uhh... ya know.. *IF* say, you.. or we were to "hear through the grapevine" some allegation of a wrong doing on their part, say.. from someone like YOU maybe.... We'd then have a GREEN LIGHT to see if we could finnd something that we could interpret as punishable infractions of all our rules and polices... but, make sure you understand now, just cause you are MAD, and want to get even, we are not allowed to suggest you do something like this".

This is all good huh?

Just for conversations sake, if that sort of action is by Hoyle, just what exactly is PROHIBITED RETALIATION by the harasser? And if there is NO PROTECTION from the HARASSER, why have a NON-RETALIATION law/policy at all?

 

[kmckenn]

that same law says that the EMPLOYER can not "discriminate" against its employee's, which is somehow interpreted to reading that it can not stand by and allow its employees to do so, otherwise there would be no such thing as harassment by anyone but the EMPLOYER.

So, assuming that employees are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of protected status(s)(sex, religion, race, etc, which they are not), how and why is it that they gain some sort of exemption blanket for dicriminating against the protected status of filing a complaint? WHICH, Title VII *EXPLICTLY* states they can not do.

On February 28, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit decided Rochon v. Gonzales, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 5028 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In Rochon, the D.C.
Circuit expressly expanded the definition of _adverse action,_ within the context of Title VII even beyond
retaliatory acts related to the employment at all.

_We hold Title VII makes unlawful any act of retaliation by an employer that well might dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination pursuant to Title VII._


Representing myself as a "reasonable" employee... I think a employers allowance of the harasser free reign to retaliate however they please would disuade me..

 

[cbg]

What Belieze means is that this has the look of a homework assignment that you have been assigned, and we don't do your homework.

 

[mitousmom]

that same law says that the EMPLOYER can not "discriminate" against its employee's, which is somehow interpreted to reading that it can not stand by and allow its employees to do so, otherwise there would be no such thing as harassment by anyone but the EMPLOYER.

The only harassment that is illegal under the federal anti-discrimination laws is harassment by the employer. The anti-discrimination laws are directed only at the actions of the employer and its agents. The employer's agents are supervisors and members of management, not the rank and file employees.

Your alleged harasser is not a supervisor or a manager. Therefore, he is not an agent of the employer. It's not the employer who seeks revenge against the complaining employee. It is the alleged harasser, a co-worker. Furthermore, the alleged harasser is not taking any direct action against the complaining employee. He is just feeding information about the complaining employee to management. And, as long as management doesn't take any action against the complaining employee because of her complaint, the employer is not in violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of the anti-discrimination laws.

If the complaining employee doesn't like the fact that the alleged harasser is making reports, false or otherwise, to management, she probably could sue him for slander, but she doesn't have a right of action under the anti-discriminations laws.

Under federal law, an employer only becomes liable for co-worker harassment if it was aware of it, or should have been aware of it, and didn't take immediate and appropriate corrective action to end it. And for there to be a violation of the laws, the harassment directed at the victim must be so severe or pervasive as to unreasonably interfere with the employee's ability to perform her job. Nothing in the example you cite indicates any of that.

 

[kmckenn]

Your statements have logic....

Just out of curiousties sake, why then would an employer, when dealing with a SH complaint amoung co-workers, make sure the harasser is to be informed of the NON-RETALIATION policy? If its not against the law for an employee to retaliate against a co-worker, why inform the harasser of the non-retaliation?

 

[mitousmom]

You need to ask the employer that question for a definitive answer. My guess is because it's against the employer's internal policies or rules of conduct for the harasser to retaliate against the employee who lodged a complaint against him. Employers can set their own behavior rules and take action against an employee for not following them. Many employers have rules that exceed federal requirements.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

The only harassment that is illegal under the federal anti-discrimination laws is harassment by the employer.

And that statement is completely false.

The anti-discrimination laws are directed only at the actions of the employer and its agents. The employer's agents are supervisors and members of management, not the rank and file employees.

Point to any federal law, regulation or rule that specifically states this. or any case law.

Your alleged harasser is not a supervisor or a manager. Therefore, he is not an agent of the employer. It's not the employer who seeks revenge against the complaining employee. It is the alleged harasser, a co-worker. Furthermore, the alleged harasser is not taking any direct action against the complaining employee. He is just feeding information about the complaining employee to management. And, as long as management doesn't take any action against the complaining employee because of her complaint, the employer is not in violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of the anti-discrimination laws.

where did you get your legal knowledge? Cracker Jacks?

If the complaining employee doesn't like the fact that the alleged harasser is making reports, false or otherwise, to management, she probably could sue him for slander, but she doesn't have a right of action under the anti-discriminations laws.

OH BROTHER!

Under federal law, an employer only becomes liable for co-worker harassment if it was aware of it, or should have been aware of it, and didn't take immediate and appropriate corrective action to end it. And for there to be a violation of the laws, the harassment directed at the victim must be so severe or pervasive as to unreasonably interfere with the employee's ability to perform her job. Nothing in the example you cite indicates any of that.

where the hell did you get this crap?

THIS is why we don't do homework. Because any idiot can post here and more times than not, what they post is so far off the actual fact that the people who read this diatribe go away thinking they now know the answer.

So MIT, post here references in Federal Labor Law or case law that supports your idiotic statements above.