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

[weenor]

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.

I wish you would tell the judge and jury in my most recent discrimination trial that this is law because my client lost his rear based on his failure to correct co-employee "harassment" that he didn't even know about.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Ellerth vs. Burlington Industries (No. 97-569) and Faragher vs. City of Boca Raton (No. 97-282)

Nuff Said???

 

[weenor]

Ellerth vs. Burlington Industries (No. 97-569) and Faragher vs. City of Boca Raton (No. 97-282)

Nuff Said???

That was the judge's exact reply to my MJAL!!!

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I only wish Mit was across the aisle from ME in the case at hand

 

[mitousmom]

You might begin by reading the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act:

SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants
for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his
status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin.

Please focus on the word "employer" specified by the statute.

If you want to understand the requirements for illegal sexual harassment, you might start with the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 106 S. Ct. 2399, 40 EPD ¶ 36,159 (1986)

You may also want to read EEOC regulations on sex discrimination, in particular, 29 CFR 1604.11 (d) which states:

(d) With respect to conduct between fellow employees, an employer is
responsible for acts of sexual harassment in the workplace where the
employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have
known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and
appropriate corrective action.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift.

 

[mitousmom]

Ellerth vs. Burlington Industries (No. 97-569) and Faragher vs. City of Boca Raton (No. 97-282)

Nuff Said???

No, not really. If you will carefully read both decisions, you will find that the Supreme Court's holding in the cases was that employers are "vicariously liable" for harassment by supervisors. Neither decision dealt with co-worker harassment.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

No, not really. If you will carefully read both decisions, you will find that the Supreme Court's holding in the cases was that employers are "vicariously liable" for harassment by supervisors. Neither decision dealt with co-worker harassment.

Are you so ignorant that you don't understand plain english?

Please tell me you didn't get your degree at George Washington....I'd hate to think they are turning out idiots since I left.

 

[mitousmom]

I wish you would tell the judge and jury in my most recent discrimination trial that this is law because my client lost his rear based on his failure to correct co-employee "harassment" that he didn't even know about.

Without seeing the decision or knowing the facts of the case, it's hard to comment. Maybe your argument was faulty. Could be that the judge and jury concluded that your client should have know about the harassment or didn't have procedures in place that would allow employees to complain about harassing behavior. There are a number of possibilities that could explain the outcome.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Without seeing the decision or knowing the facts of the case, it's hard to comment. Maybe your argument was faulty. Could be that the judge and jury concluded that your client should have know about the harassment or didn't have procedures in place that would allow employees to complain about harassing behavior. There are a number of possibilities that could explain the outcome.

There could also be a number of explanations as to why you get confused so easily.

Now, go back and re-read the responses.

and then justify this statement made by you:
The only harassment that is illegal under the federal anti-discrimination laws is harassment by the employer.

And this one:
The anti-discrimination laws are directed only at the actions of the employer and its agents.

And espeically this one which is twice wrong:
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.

And when you're done with that, come back and explain to the poster just what "Hostile Work Environment" means in light of the two decisions I posted.

 

[mitousmom]

Are you so ignorant that you don't understand plain english?

English is my native language and I think I have a fairly good grasp of it. I'm not convinced, however, that most court decisions are written in plain English. However, both the Faragher and Ellerth decisions are sufficiently plain enough to show that they involved harassment by supervisors, i.e., agents of the employer, not co-workers.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

English is my native language and I think I have a fairly good grasp of it. I'm not convinced, however, that most court decisions are written in plain English. However, both the Faragher and Ellerth decisions are sufficiently plain enough to show that they involved harassment by supervisors, i.e., agents of the employer, not co-workers.

Oh brother....
God help us if you are actually an attorney
I am done trying to educate you.

 

[mitousmom]

Oh brother....
God help us if you are actually an attorney
I am done trying to educate you.

I really don't desire your education or am in need of it. If your responses are an indication of your knowledge, I'm satisfied to leave my education on this subject to the experts for whom I have worked and the Ivy League institutions from which I have graduated.

 

[kmckenn]

MOM:

So, if what you are saying, there is no such thing as co-worker to coworker sexual harassment? Myself as an employee, could tell you as a fellow employee, ask you, harass you, do lewd things to you all I please, and ask all my co-workers to join in, and its all good, cause I am not an EMPLOYER, so its not harassment?

 

[mitousmom]

If your employer was unaware of the harassment, didn't have any reason to suspect harassment, and had a complaint process through which employees could complain about harassment, your employer would not be liable under the EEO statutes for the actions of the co-workers. That doesn't mean that the employer on its own couldn't take disciplinary action against the harassers. It just means that under the current interpretations of EEO laws, the employer wouldn't be liable for the behavior of the harassing employees.

Another version: If your employer became aware of the harassment and promptly took corrective action to end it, your employer would not be liable for the co-workers' action.

Another version: If the employer was aware of the harassment by the co-workers and didn't take prompt and corrective action, it would be liable.

Another take on your latest scenerio: If I, the employee, don't object to the lewd things, it's not sexual harassment anyway. A lot of sexual banter, viewing of girlie magazines, etc. goes on in the workplace and no one objects to it. For sexual behavior to be harassment, it has to be unwelcome.

But your initial situation involved an employee who was not doing anything to the victim. He was simply bad mouthing her to management. If management doesn't do anything to the victim, she hasn't been harassed or retaliated against by anyone. She hasn't suffered any actionable harm, so she has no claim under the EEO statutes.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

MOM:

So, if what you are saying, there is no such thing as co-worker to coworker sexual harassment? Myself as an employee, could tell you as a fellow employee, ask you, harass you, do lewd things to you all I please, and ask all my co-workers to join in, and its all good, cause I am not an EMPLOYER, so its not harassment?

KM,
I would stronly suggest that you speak with a COMPETENT employment rights attorney instead of some stranger who PROPORTS to be an attorney on the internet.

You are receiving false information. And that is the KINDEST comment I can make at this point.