Archive for October, 2010
More and more in the news today, there is frequent coverage of sexual harassment lawsuits. In most cases, these involve an employee and one of their employer’s employees. However, recent cases indicate that employers may also be responsible for sexual harassment of third parties and/or customers if they are aware of the harassment but fail to remedy or address it.
On September 27, 2010, the EEOC filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Beacon Hill Investments Corp., which does business as Synergy Home Care, on behalf of a group of female employees assigned to care for one of the employer’s home bound male clients. The female employees’ duties included sleeping at the client’s home overnight. The client allegedly fondled the female employees, made suggestive comments to them, and accosted them in their sleep. The employees allegedly complained to several managers and requested to be transferred. The employer is accused of ignoring their complaints and failing to take any remedial action. The female workers then quit, allegedly because of the employer’s inaction.
The EEOC claims that, by failing to take prompt remedial action in response to the female employees’ complaints, Synergy Home Care subjected them to a sexually hostile work environment and constructively discharged them. The EEOC seeks permanent injunctions against Synergy Home Care to prevent future discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and an order that Synergy Home Care institute policies and programs to provide equal employment opportunities for women which eradicate the effect of the alleged discrimination. The EEOC also seeks damages for the female employees, including: backpay; frontpay; out-of-pocket losses, such as job search expenses; pain and suffering; loss of enjoyment of life; and punitive damages.
Many employers and managers may not realize that, as the above-mentioned lawsuit urges, an employer may be “responsible for the acts of non-employees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees in the workplace.” 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(e). For an employer to be liable for non-employee harassment, the employee must show that: (i) he or she was subjected to unlawful harassment on the basis of his or her sex; (ii) the harassment was unwelcome; (iii) the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to affect a term, condition, or privilege of his or her employment, and (iv) the employer knew or reasonably should have known about the harassment by the third-party and failed to take prompt remedial action.
So in the event you, as an employee, are sexually harassed by your employer or third parties such as their customers, and the employer has knowledge of what is taking place, you may want to file a complaint with the EEOC or contact and experienced employment lawyer to address these issues.
I have blogged on many occasions about the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA. This statute and the amendments to it prevent an employer from discriminating against an employee due to an actual or perceived disability. This act not only includes termination or demotions, but also requires that an employer provide accommodations to those with qualified disabilities. For many years, the scope of this act was severely limited due to several rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, but due to recent amendents by Congress, the scope of this act has now been expanded to include many different kinds of disabilities.
It seems the most recent disability that will now be covered under the ADA is obesity. The EEOC has recently filed suit against Resources for Human Development (RHD), a national non-profit human services organization, claiming it fired a child-care worker because she was obese. The agency claims the firing violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case involves Lisa Harrison, who worked with young children of mothers undergoing treatment for addiction in an RHD-run facility in suburban New Orleans.
The EEOC alleges that Harrison was fired because RHD perceived Harrison as being substantially limited in a number of major life activities, including walking, because of her weight, the EEOC claims. But the agency says Harrison was able to perform all of the essential functions of her position. Before the EEOC filed suit, Harrison died. Her private interests will be represented in the lawsuit by her estate.
Up to this point, many courts have ruled that obesity does not fall into the category of disability under the ADA.
But with the passage of the ADA Amendments Act, the definition of disability was substantially widened.
The lawsuit is EEOC v. Resources for Human Development, U.S. Dist. Crt., E.D. LA, No. 2:10-cv-03322.
If you believe you have been the victim of workplace discrimination due to obesity or the perception that you are obese, you should contact an employment lawyer to discuss your possible legal options.