In the workplace, there are several federal laws such as that protect employees’ from . Under Title VII, the employer is responsible for ensuring that the law is followed. in the workplace is determined upon the legal status of the alleged harasser. For example, the employer would be liable if it was negligent in controlling working conditions thus creating the opportunity for a co-worker to harass another employee. In cases where the alleged harasser is a ‘supervisor’ then different rules would apply.

Until the settled the question of who is a ‘supervisor,’ various District and Circuit Courts could not agree on the legal standard. Before Vance, the legal theory of vicarious liability imputed to the employer for the purposes of discrimination claims under Tile VII holds that the supervisor must be in the position to hire, fire, promote, demote, transfer, or discipline an employee. The (EEOC) cited a broader definition to include those employees that hold a day-to-day supervisory authority. Vance clarifies and limits the definition of supervisor.

In this case, the petitioner Maetta Vance, an African- woman, sued her employer (BSU) alleging that a fellow employee, Saundra Davis, whom Vance considered a supervisor, created a hostile environment by using racial slurs, and physically accosted Vance in an elevator.
The petitioner filed a complaint with BSU and the EEOC. During the investigatory process, BSU took some corrective action, warning other employees’ that racial harassment would not be tolerated in the workplace. But the continued, therefore, Vance filed a federal lawsuit.

Under Title VII, to prevail on claims related to co-worker workplace harassment, the plaintiff must prove that the employer is negligent in responding to complaints about harassment; however, to prevail on claims related to workplace harassment by a ‘supervisor’ the employer does not have to be negligent because Title VII imputes the supervisor’s acts to the employer. Vance asserted that Davis was a ‘supervisor’ although BSU claimed Davis was not actually Vance’s supervisor. The District Court and the determined that Davis was not Vance’s ‘supervisor’ because Davis did not have the power to direct the terms and conditions of Vance’s employment. Additionally, both courts found that BSU had an adequate system in place for reporting and investigating claims of workplace harassment under Title VII, therefore, BSU could not be negligent.

The United States Supreme Court was presented with the following questions: Whether or not an employee or co-worker who has been given the authority to oversee the daily work of another worker can be considered a ‘supervisor’ for the purpose of determining employer liability for workplace harassment?

Ultimately the Court ruled in favor of BSU holding that an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s unlawful workplace harassment only when the employer has “empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim, i.e., to effect a “significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.� We reject the nebulous definition of a “supervisor� advocated in the EEOC Guidance…�

This landmark decision clarified the definition of a ‘supervisor’ for the purpose of determining liability for workplace discrimination claims but, does not change the employers obligation to provide a work environment that is free from workplace harassment, investigate and remedy any such claims, and constantly monitor the workplace for such behaviors that may be exhibited or demonstrated by their employees.

The post Who is a ‘Supervisor’ Under Title VII? first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

An employer is liable for direct actions against employees. Many times courts have imposed vicarious liability on the employers for the actions of their agents. This means that if any employee is discriminated against or harassed by an agent of the employer, the employer can be made liable for the actions of its agents. One such case decided by the court is Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth.

In this case, Kimberly Ellerth was an employee of Burlington Industries Inc. She quit her job alleging the she was constantly harassed sexually by one of her supervisors, Ted Slowik, who was in charge of promotions and increments but not a policy maker. She alleged that the harassment against her created a hostile work environment and also affected her work benefits. Ellerth brought an action before the District Court alleging that the supervisor’s action is in violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII “prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee on the basis of sex, race, religion, color and national origin.�

The District Court issued an order favoring Ellerth. Burlington appealed before the Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit. The Court of Appeals observed that the concept of ‘hostile work environment’ violates Title VII and is a cognizable offense under Title VII. Further, the Court observed the concept of ‘vicarious liability’. It was discussed that the term ‘employer’ under Title VII also includes the agents of the employer. Moreover, violations of Title VII can be claimed only for an intentional action against the employee although the concept of ‘vicarious liability’ is applicable for both intentional and negligent torts.

In the instant case, Court observed that the supervisor is the agent of the employer and hence Burlington is vicariously liable for the actions of its agent, the supervisor. Therefore, the action of the supervisor is intentional and is in violation of Title VII.

The contention of the employer was that Burlington have a policy against sexual harassment, it was the duty of the employee to complain about the alleged sexual harassment to Burlington. Burlington further argued that it could not be held responsible for torts or other offenses that are committed by its supervisor without its knowledge. Moreover, the employee did not inform Burlington of the alleged sexual harassment, further, Ellerth had no proof of being sexually harassed.

The Court rejected these contentions of Burlington and ruled that it was vicariously liable for the actions of its supervisor. The Court held that:
“Under Title VII, an employee who refuses the unwelcome and threatening sexual advances of a supervisor, yet suffers no adverse, tangible job consequences, may recover against the employer without showing the employer is negligent or otherwise at fault for the supervisor’s actions, but the employer may interpose an affirmative defense.â€�

Therefore, the Court granted an opportunity to Ellerth to prove liability and recover against the employer for alleged sexual harassment. The Court also granted Burlington the opportunity of being heard that is, an opportunity to defend against Ellerth’s alleged claims of sexual harassment.
If you believe that, you are the victim of gender discrimination aka sexual harassment contact ¸£Àû¼§. in at 1-800-371-4835. We will review your claim thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post Employer Liable for Sexual Harassment By Supervisor first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, sex, color, religion and national origin. The courts have many times widened the scope of Title VII to include at the workplace. The sexual harassment could be either providing employment benefits on conditions of sexual favors aka “� or the creation of offensive work conditions. A well-known case regarding the hostile working environment is , 477 U.S. 57 (1986).

In this case, an employee brought an action against her supervisor for sexual harassment during the period of her employment at the bank. The employee’s contention was that the sexual harassment was in violation of Title VII of Act. Though the district court had passed an order stating that the sexual relationship of the employee with her supervisor was voluntary, the affirmed the employee’s contention and the also upheld most of the findings of the court of appeals.

The Court of Appeals held that the employee was subjected to a “� form of sexual harassment and therefore, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The court further held that in order to determine a “voluntary sexual relationship� there has to be either sexually provocative dress or speech or the welcomed sexual advances of the supervisor by the employee.
There is one aspect in which courts have different opinions. The aspect is regarding the liability of employer for the actions of its employees. In the instant case the employee had never complained about the sexual harassment to the concerned department of the bank. Hence, the bank was not aware of the incidents of sexual harassment of the employee by the supervisor. The Court of Appeals held that the employer is liable for the actions of its employees even though the harassment was not brought to the employer’s attention. The court defined a between the employer and the supervisor in this case. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court of Appeals considered the definition of ‘employer’ given under Title VII that includes ‘any agent.’ However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in its finding with regard to this aspect. Further, the Supreme Court ruled that the bank cannot be made liable for the actions of its supervisor when the incidents of sexual harassment were not brought to its notice. Hence, in this case the principal – agent relationship was not established.

Further, the Supreme Court rejected the contention that the supervisor is not liable, as the employee had not complained to the grievance department of the bank. The court held that the bank’s grievance procedure includes filing a with the supervisor. As in this case the complaint was against the supervisor, the employee cannot be considered to be at fault for not filing a complaint with the bank. Therefore, the supervisor is liable for sexually harassing the employee by creating hostile working environment in the workplace.

If you believe that, you are the victim of gender discrimination aka sexual harassment contact ¸£Àû¼§. in New York. We will review your claim thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post Hostile Work Environment Due to Sexual Harassment first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..