Blog

EEOC Subregulatory Guidance

EEOC Subregulatory Guidance
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/index.cfm

EEOC subregulatory guidance documents express official agency policy and are used to explain how the laws and regulations apply to specific workplace situations. 

When considering the development of subregulatory guidance, the Commission may hold a public meeting to hear testimony from witnesses, including experts in the issue being examined. Since June 2011, the Commission has also left the meeting record open for 15 days to allow further public input on the topic. 

Where obtaining further public input will aid the Commission's development of a guidance document, the Commission has expanded the tools available to obtain feedback by publishing draft guidance on www.regulations.gov for public input.

  • Proposed subregulatory policy documents must communicate policy positions the Commission is proposing on important legal issues. These documents are approved by a majority of the Commissioners for the purpose of seeking public input, but they do not establish Commission policy until the Commission approves the final version by a majority vote. 

There are several formats for EEOC Subregulatory Guidance Documents, which are approved by a majority of the Commission:

  • Compliance Manual advises staff on substantive matters of law for use during investigations and in making reasonable cause determinations. 
  • EEOC Enforcement Guidance, Policy Guidance, and Policy Statements communicate the Commission's position on important legal issues. Before these guidance documents were made available on the Internet, they were filed behind the Compliance Manual section to which they most closely related. 
  • Management Directives instruct other federal agencies about the administrative procedures for federal employee or applicant claims of employment discrimination.

You can also view these guidance documents by subject area:

You may also see:

Continue reading
223 Hits

sexual harassment

sexual harassment
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sexual+Harassment


Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Acronyms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to sexual harassment: sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual discrimination

Sexual Harassment

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment.

Sexual harassment is a form of Sex Discrimination that occurs in the workplace. Persons who are the victims of sexual harassment may sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.), which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace.

The federal courts did not recognize sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination until the 1970s, because the problem originally was perceived as isolated incidents of flirtation in the workplace. Employers are now aware that they can be sued by the victims of workplace sexual harassment. The accusations of sexual harassment made by anita f. hill against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas during his 1991 confirmation hearings also raised societal consciousness about this issue.

Courts and employers generally use the definition of sexual harassment contained in the guidelines of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This language has also formed the basis for most state laws prohibiting sexual harassment. The guidelines state:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when

  1. submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
  2. submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
  3. such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980])

A key part of the definition is the use of the word unwelcome. Unwelcome or uninvited conduct or communication of a sexual nature is prohibited; welcome or invited actions or words are not unlawful. Sexual or romantic interaction between consenting people at work may be offensive to observers or may violate company policy, but it is not sexual harassment.

The courts have generally concluded that a victim need not say or do a particular thing to indicate unwelcomeness. Instead, a court will review all of the circumstances to determine whether it was reasonably clear to the harasser that the conduct was unwelcome. The courts have recognized that victims may be afraid to express their discomfort if the harasser is their boss or is physically intimidating. Victims may be coerced into going along with sexual talk or activities because they believe they will be punished or fired if they protest. Consent can be given to a relationship and then withdrawn when the relationship ends. Once it is withdrawn, continued romantic or sexual words or actions are not protected by the past relationship and may be sexual harassment.

The law prohibits unwelcome "sexual" conduct and words or actions "of a sexual nature." Some conduct, such as hugging, may be sexual or nonsexual and must be evaluated in context. Sexual harassment may be physical, such as kissing, hugging, pinching, patting, grabbing, blocking the victim's path, leering or staring, or standing very close to the victim. It may also be verbal, which may be oral or written and could include requests

Same-Sex Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment in the workplace is usually associated with a heterosexual employee making unwelcome sexual advances to another heterosexual employee of the opposite gender. There are also cases where a homosexual employee harasses an employee of the same sex. But can a heterosexual employee sexually harass another heterosexual employee of the same gender?

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in Melnychenko v. 84 Lumber Company, 424 Mass. 285, 676 N.E.2d 45 (1997), concluded that same-sex sexual harassment is prohibited under state law regardless of the sexual orientation of the parties.

Leonid Melnychenko and two other employees at a Massachusetts lumberyard were subjected to humiliating verbal and physical conduct by Richard Raab and two other employees. Raab loudly demanded sexual favors from the men, exposed himself, and simulated sexual acts. Eventually the three employees quit their jobs with the lumber company and sued, claiming that sexual harassment was the reason for their departure.

At trial, the judge concluded that Raab's actions were not "true romantic overtures to the plaintiffs, and that they were not inspired by lust or sexual desire." Raab, who was "physically violent and sadistic," sought to "degrade and humiliate" the men.

The trial judge and the Supreme Judicial Court agreed that Raab's behavior constituted sexual harassment because it interfered with the three plaintiffs' work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating, and sexually offensive work environment. Raab's sexual orientation did not excuse the conduct. The unwelcome sexual advances and requests for sexual favors were more than lewd horseplay and raunchy talk. They constituted sexual harassment.

In a subsequent case involving charges of same-sex sexual harassment, the Supreme Court held in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., et al., 523 U.S. 75, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d. 201 (U.S. 1998), that Title VII prohibits sexual harassment even when the harasser and target of harassment are of the same sex. Joseph Oncale worked for Sundowner Offshore Services on an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico from August to November 1991. Oncale's supervisor and two co-workers forcibly subjected Oncale to humiliating sex-related actions in the presence of the rest of the crew. Oncale had even been threatened with rape. Oncale complained to other supervisors, but no remedial action was taken. Oncale eventually quit, requesting that Sundowner indicate that he voluntarily left due to sexual harassment and verbal abuse. He subsequently filed a Title VII action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The Fifth Circuit ruled against Oncale, stating that the Title VII prohibition against sexual harassment does not include same-sex sexual harassment, even harassment as blatant as Oncale's supervisor exposing his penis and placing it on Oncale's body, and also, along with two co-workers, attacking Oncale in a shower and forcing a bar of soap into his anus while threatening rape. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for a unanimous court that reversed the lower court. In a strongly worded opinion, he complained of the lack of common sense demonstrated by the lower courts that had hitherto excluded same-sex claims, and also those that had conditioned liability on a same-sex sexual harasser being gay or lesbian.

Further readings

Black, Jessica. 1997. "Same-Sex Harassment—Employment Discrimination—Civil Rights." Massachusetts Law Review 82 (fall).

Pierce, Karla J. 2003. "Title VII and Same-Sex Sexual Harassment After Oncale—Uncertainty Lingers." Colorado Lawyer 32 (June).

Weizer, Paul I. 2002. Sexual Harassment: Cases, Case Studies, & Commentary. New York: P. Lang.

Cross-references

Assault; Civil Rights Acts; Sex Offenses.

or demands for dates or sex, sexual jokes, comments about the victim's body or clothing, whistles, catcalls, or comments or questions about the victim's or harasser's social life or sexual life. Sexual harassment may also be visual, such as cartoons, pictures, or objects of a sexual nature.

The laws against sexual harassment are violated when "submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of…employment." This language refers to what is sometimes called quid pro quo sexual harassment, in which a victim's hire, job security, pay, receipt of benefits, or status depends on her or his response to a superior's sexual overtures, comments, or actions. The quid pro quo may be direct, as when a superior explicitly demands sexual favors and threatens firing if the demands are not met, or it may be indirect, as when a superior suggests that employment success depends on "personality" or "friendship" rather than competence.

Sexual harassment also occurs when sexual conduct or communication "unreasonably interfer[es] with an individual's work performance." Tangible loss of pay, benefits, or the job itself is not required for sexual harassment to be claimed and proven. Generally, occurrences must be significant or repeated or both for substantial interference to be established.

Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill Hearings

The issue of sexual harassment drew national attention during the 1991 Senate hearings on the confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. Anita Faye Hill, a professor at the University of Oklahoma Law Center, accused Thomas of sexually harassing her when she worked for him at the U.S. Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) between 1981 and 1983. The public disclosure of the allegations resulted in nationally televised hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The hearings, which drew a large national viewing audience, raised questions about Thomas's behavior, Hill's credibility, and the nature of sexual harassment in the workplace. The demeanor of the 12 white male members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the questions they asked Hill raised the ire of many women's groups, who saw in the senators' behavior an unwillingness to acknowledge the dynamics of sexual harassment.

Thomas, then a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, had been nominated by President george h. w. bush to fill the seat vacated by Justice Thurgood Marshall. Thomas's opponents, including many Democrats and interest groups, tried to block his nomination because they did not want Thomas, an outspoken conservative African American, replacing Marshall, an African American and one of the few remaining liberals on the Court. After questioning Thomas at length, the Judiciary Committee deadlocked 7–7 on whether to recommend the nominee to the full Senate and then sent the nomination to the floor without a recommendation. Nevertheless, it appeared that Thomas would win confirmation by a comfortable, though not necessarily large, margin.

Then on October 6, 1991, Anita Hill publicly accused Thomas of sexual harassment. The charges rocked the Senate. Hill had been contacted earlier by Senate staff members, and she told them of her allegations. The Judiciary Committee asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to talk to Hill and Thomas about the allegations. The FBI produced a report that was inconclusive, being largely a matter of "he said, she said." The allegations would probably never have come to public attention except that Hill's statement was leaked to National Public Radio (NPR). Once NPR broke the story, Thomas's confirmation was thrown into doubt. In response, the Judiciary Committee announced that Thomas and Hill would be given a chance to testify before the committee.

The Hill-Thomas hearings took place the weekend of October 11th. Hill testified that after she had refused to date Thomas, he had initiated a number of sexually oriented conversations, some of which alluded to pornographic films. She provided vivid details about these conversations, but her credibility was questioned by Thomas supporters who suggested, among other things, that Hill might have fantasized the conversations. Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) interrogated Hill as if she were a criminal suspect and suggested that she might be charged with perjury. Other senators wondered why she had followed Thomas from the Education Department to the EEOC if he had sexually harassed her. She replied that the harassment seemingly had ended and that she was uncertain about the future of her job at Education.

Thomas forcefully denied all of Hill's allegations and portrayed himself as the victim of a racist attack. According to him, Hill's allegations were "charges that play into racist, bigoted stereotypes." He reminded the committee that historically, when African American men were lynched, they were almost always accused of sexual misconduct, and he characterized the hearings as a "high-tech lynching."

Thomas's impassioned defense proved to be effective. It not only disarmed his Democratic opponents on the committee, who in the opinion of many commentators failed to question Thomas effectively, but it also won him sympathy throughout the country. A New York Times/CBS News poll taken October 28, 1991, found that 58 percent of the respondents believed Thomas: only 24 percent believed Hill.

The committee also heard from witnesses who said that Hill had discussed the harassment with them during the time she worked for Thomas. Thomas's supporters produced several men as character references, one of whom alleged that Hill's statements were a product of romantic fantasy. Several women who would have testified that Thomas exhibited similar behavior with them either declined to testify after seeing the committee's grilling of Hill or were not called by the committee.

Thomas was confirmed two days after the hearings, on a vote of 52–48, the narrowest margin for a Supreme Court justice since 1888.

Thomas's confirmation did not end the controversy. Some commentators characterized the hearings as a perversion of the process and suggested that Hill's charges should have been aired in closed committee hearings. Others criticized Hill as a pawn of liberal and feminist interest groups that sought to derail Thomas's nomination by any means. Some critics also accused Hill of being an active participant in the move to defeat Thomas; they claimed that she was a Democrat who pretended to be a Republican so as to appear politically impartial.

Hill's defenders were outraged by the committee's treatment of her. They described her plight as typical of women who bring sexual harassment claims. Unless the woman has third-party testimony backing up her charges, the "he said, she said" scenario always favors the man. The senators' questioning of Hill's motivations was also evidence of how men fail to understand sexual harassment. Many of the senators saw her as either a liar, a publicity seeker, or an emotionally disturbed woman who fantasized the alleged incidents. In response, T-shirts appeared that stated "I believe Anita Hill." There was also concern that Hill's treatment might discourage women from reporting sexual harassment. The Thomas-Hill hearings were a watershed event in the discussion of sexual harassment.

Further readings

Morrison, Toni, ed. 1992. Race-ing Justice, Engendering Power: Essays on Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas, and the Construction of Social Reality. New York: Pantheon.

Ragan, Sandra L., et al, eds. 1996. The Lynching of Language: Gender, Politics, and Power in the Hill-Thomas Hearings. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.

Siegel, Paul, ed. 1996. Outsiders Looking In: A Communication Perspective on the Hill/Thomas Hearings. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.

Smitherman, Geneva, ed. 1995. African American Women Speak Out on Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas. Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press.

Unreasonable interference can occur between coworkers of equal status as well as between superiors and subordinates. The employer of the coworker may be legally liable for such harassment if the employer knows or should know about it and fails to take timely and appropriate responsive action.The sexual harassment lawsuit filed in 1994 by Paula Jones against President bill clinton highlighted this workplace issue. In 1991 Jones was an employee of the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission and Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Jones claimed that while working at an official conference at a Little Rock hotel, she was persuaded by a member of the Arkansas state police to visit the governor in a business suite at the hotel. She alleged that Clinton made sexual advances that she rejected. Jones also claimed that because she rejected his advances, her superiors dealt with her in a rude and hostile manner and changed her job duties.

Clinton denied the charges and sought to delay the lawsuit until after he left the presidency. The Supreme Court rejected this argument in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 137 L.Ed.2d 945 (1997), and he was forced to defend himself. In 1998 the federal district court dismissed her action, ruling that there was no proof that Jones was emotionally injured or punished in the workplace for rejecting Clinton's advances. Jones appealed this ruling but agreed to drop her lawsuit in return for $850,000. She also dropped her previous demand that Clinton apologize or make an admission of guilt.

The most far-reaching part of the EEOC definition is that dealing with a hostile or offensive working environment. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the concept of a hostile work environment as actionable under the 1964 Civil Rights Act in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 106 S. Ct. 2399, 91 L. Ed. 49 (1986). The Court rejected a narrow reading of the statute, under which an employer could not be held liable for sexual harassment unless the employee's salary and promotions were affected by the actions.

In the Vinson case, plaintiff Michelle Vinson, an employee of Meritor Savings Bank, claimed that her male supervisor, Sidney Taylor, had sexually harassed her. Taylor made repeated demands for sexual favors, and the pair engaged in sexual relations at least 40 times. Vinson testified that she engaged in sexual relations because she feared losing her job if she refused. The harassment stopped after Vinson began a steady relationship with a boyfriend. One year later, Taylor fired Vinson for excessive use of medical leave. Although the bank had a procedure for reporting harassment, Vinson had not used it because it required her to report the alleged offenses to her supervisor—Taylor.

Justice william h. rehnquist, writing for the Court, established several basic principles for analyzing hostile environment cases. First, for sexual harassment to be actionable, it must be severe enough to change the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment. Here, Rehnquist implied that isolated occurrences of harassment (such as the telling of a dirty joke or the display of a sexually explicit photograph) would not constitute a hostile work environment.

Second, Rehnquist made clear that there is a difference between voluntary behavior and welcome behavior. Noting that Vinson and Taylor's sexual relations were voluntary, Rehnquist rejected the conclusion that Vinson's willingness constituted a defense to sexual harassment. The critical issue was whether the sexual advances were welcome. If sexual advances are unwelcome, the inequality of power between a supervisor and subordinate strongly suggests that the employee engages in sexual relations out of fear.

Third, Rehnquist held that courts must view the totality of the circumstances when deciding the issue of welcomeness. In Vinson, however, the Court did not address the question of whose perspective should be used in determining whether certain behavior so substantially changes the work environment that it becomes abusive: should the standard be that of a reasonable man, a Reasonable Woman, or a reasonable person?

In Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, 760 F. Supp. 1486 (M.D. Fla. 1991), federal district judge Howell Melton applied the reasonable woman test to determine if the work environment was abusive to women. He held that a reasonable woman exposed to the pictures of nude or partially nude women that were posted in the workplace and to the sexually demeaning remarks and jokes by male workers would find that the work environment at the shipyards was abusive. The totality of the circumstances would lead a reasonable woman to these conclusions.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals echoed this reasoning in Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (1991). In Ellison, the court rejected the reasonable person standard in favor of the reasonable woman standard. The court believed that using the reasonable person standard would risk enforcing the prevailing level of discrimination because that standard would be male biased.

Even with the acceptance of the reasonable woman standard by the courts, the diversity of outcomes in harassment claims created confusion as to what constitutes harassment. In Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17, 114 S. Ct. 367, 126 L. Ed. 295 (1993), the Supreme Court attempted to clarify this issue. Teresa Harris had filed a discrimination claim based on the behavior of the company president, Charles Hardy. Hardy had insulted Harris and other women with demeaning references to their gender and with unwanted sexual innuendo.

The district court ruled that although Hardy's comments were sufficiently offensive to cause discomfort for a reasonable woman, they did not rise to the level of interfering with that woman's work performance. The court also held that Harris had not been injured by the comments.

The Supreme Court overruled the lower court, holding that courts must not focus their inquiry on concrete psychological harm, which is not required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. To maintain such a requirement would force employees to submit to discriminatory behavior until they were completely broken by it. So long as the workplace environment would reasonably be perceived as hostile or abusive, it did not need also to be psychologically injurious.

Thus, the plaintiff in a hostile work environment case must show that sexually harassing behavior is more than occasional, but need not document an abusive environment that causes actual psychological injury. The courts recognize that a hostile work environment will detract from employees' job performance, discourage employees from remaining in their positions, and keep employees from advancing in their careers. The Title VII guiding rule of workplace equality requires that employers prevent a hostile work environment.

In Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998), the Supreme Court sought to clarify the confusing state of sexual harassment law. It held that an employee could sue for damages for sexual harassment under Title VII even if the employee did not suffer any adverse job consequences, such as demotion or termination. The Court stated that under Title VII, an employee who refuses "unwelcome and threatening sexual advances of supervisor, yet suffers no adverse, tangible job consequences" may recover damages from an employer. The employee does not have to show that the employer was negligent or at fault for the supervisor's actions to recover damages. The Court based its new standard on principles of agency law. Agency law describes the responsibilities of employers and employees to each other and to third parties. The Court invoked the agency principle that makes employers liable for the torts of employees who act or speak on behalf of the employer and whose apparent authority the victimized employee relies upon.

The Court, however, also provided employers with more protection in Ellerth. If a supervisor has harassed an employee, but no tangible employment action is taken against the employee, the employer may present an Affirmative Defense. This defense includes a showing that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct sexually harassing behavior. A company's policy against sexual harassment would be relevant to demonstrate reasonable care. The defense also allows the employer to show that the employee had unreasonably failed to take advantage of the employer's anti-harassment procedures.

Ellerth gave employers an additional incentive to institute policies against sexual harassment. A first step is determining if a problem exists. Some companies conduct informal surveys of their employees concerning sexual harassment. In addition, employers often inspect the workplace for objectionable material, such as photographs of nude people or insensitive or explicit jokes with sexual connotations.

Employers typically include a policy against sexual harassment in personnel policies or employee handbooks. These policies use the EEOC definition of prohibited conduct as a guideline. The prohibited conduct must be stated in an understandable way.

A complaint procedure is typically part of the policy. Most employers recognize that a prompt and thorough investigation of a complaint, followed by appropriate disciplinary action, can minimize liability. These procedures usually specify to whom a victim of harassment can complain if the victim's supervisor is the alleged harasser. Companies also routinely train supervisors to recognize sexual harassment. Finally, some employers provide sexual harassment training for all their employees as a way of trying to improve workplace culture and behavior, as well as minimizing their legal liability.

Further readings

Bingham, Clara and Laura Leedy Gansler. 2002. Class Action: The Story of Lois Jenson and the Landmark Case That Changed Sexual Harassment Law. Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday.

Crouch, Margaret A. 2001. Thinking About Sexual Harassment: A Guide for the Perplexed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Foote, William E., and Jane Goodman-Delahunty. 2004. Evaluating Sexual Harassment: Psychological, Social, and Legal Considerations in Forensic Examinations. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

LeMoncheck, Linda. 1997. Sexual Harassment: A Debate. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.

Cross-references

Employment Law; Women's Rights.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

sexual harassment

n. unwanted sexual approaches (including touching, feeling, groping) and/or repeated unpleasant, degrading and/or sexist remarks directed toward an employee with the implied suggestion that the target's employment status, promotion or favorable treatment depend upon a positive response and/or "cooperation." Sexual harassment is a private nuisance, unfair labor practice, or, in some states, a civil wrong (tort) which may be the basis for a lawsuit against the individual who made the advances and against the employer who did not take steps to halt the harassment. A legal secretary recently won an award of more than $3 million against a prominent law firm for not controlling a partner notorious for his sexual harassment of female employees. (See: nuisance)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

sexual harassment

noun actionable annoyance at place of employment, actionable conduct, gender harasssent in the workplace, offensive verbal abuse in the workklace, plan of physical harassment by superiors, policy of verbal harassment by superiors, unsolicited physical behavvor in the workplace, unsolicited verbal abuse in the workklace, unwarranted advances, unwelcome sexual advances, verbal abuse at work
Associated concepts: hostile workplace
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Continue reading
288 Hits

Texas Sexual Harassment: What you need to know

https://www.blr.com/HR-Employment/Discrimination/Sexual-Harassment-in-Texas

Texas Sexual Harassment: What you need to know

The Texas Commission on Human Rights Act prohibits employment practices that discriminate against individuals based on sex, including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions (TX Labor Code Sec. 21.106). Sexual harassment is generally included in this definition. The Act covers all public employers and private employers with 15 or more employees (TX Labor Code Sec. 21.001 et seq.). There is additional information and details.

For a Limited Time receive a FREE HR Report on the "Critical HR Recordkeeping”.  This exclusive special report covers hiring records, employment relationships, termination records, litigation issues, electronic information issues, tips for better recordkeeping, and a list of legal requirements.  Download Now

An employer will be held liable for sexual harassment if an employee can show that an employer knew or should have known of a supervisor's sexual harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action (Colbert v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 995 F. Supp. 697 (N.D. Tex. 1998)).

An employer will be held liable for sexual harassment if its actions were not reasonably calculated to stop the harassment (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wendy Davis, 979 S.W.2d 30 (3rd Dist. Tex. App. 1998); Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998)).

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an employee must have the power to directly affect the terms and conditions of a coworker to be considered a supervisor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) (Wooten v. FedEx Corp., 325 Fed.Appx. 297 (5th Cir. 2009)). In this case, two employees claimed they were subjected to a hostile work environment because of their interracial relationship. They also alleged that a coworker who had the authority to assign their deliveries had sufficient authority over their activities to be considered a supervisor under Title VII. However, the court disagreed, citing the fact that the coworker had no power to discipline the employees or evaluate their performance. Note: ...



Continue reading
234 Hits

Texas Sexual Harassment Training Requirements

https://www.sexualharassmentclass.com/Texas-Training-Requirements.aspx

Texas Sexual Harassment Training Requirements

Sexual Harrassment Class offers the most widely accepted sexual harassment training for business and working professionals. Our online sexual harassment trainings are accepted and used throughout the United States as well as Canada and abroad. We have both english and spanish sexual harassment classes to meet your requirements.

This following information are the training requirements for the state of Texas. Please contact us with your specific needs.

Texas Sexual Harassment Training Requirements
Training Type: Mandatory
Employers Covered: State Agencies
Employees Covered: All state employees: new employees within 30 days of hire and every 2 years thereafter
Other Information: Information regarding the agency’s policies and procedures related to employment discrimination, including harassment
State Legal Information:
Statute -Employment Discrimination Law
Tex. Lab. Code § 21.010

In addition to the sexual harassment training requirements in Texas you should also consider sexual harassment training if you meet any of the following criteria:

  • You have employees working in states other than Texas (please check each states' requirements below),
  • You are an educational institution who worries about meeting Title IX training requirements,
  • You have had problems with sexual harassment or other types of harassment in your organization in the past, or
  • You wish to mitigate potential liability for sexual harassment in your organization.

Sexual Harassment Training Requirements by State

Select any state below to see its sexual harassment training requirements:

•  Alabama Training Requirements •  Nebraska Training Requirements
•  Alaska Training Requirements •  Nevada Training Requirements
•  Arizona Training Requirements •  New Hampshire Training Requirements
•  Arkansas Training Requirements •  New Jersey Training Requirements
•  California Training Requirements •  New Mexico Training Requirements
•  Colorado Training Requirements •  New York Training Requirements
•  Connecticut Training Requirements •  North Carolina Training Requirements
•  Delaware Training Requirements •  North Dakota Training Requirements
•  Florida Training Requirements •  Ohio Training Requirements
•  Georgia Training Requirements •  Oklahoma Training Requirements
•  Hawaii Training Requirements •  Oregon Training Requirements
•  Idaho Training Requirements •  Pennsylvania Training Requirements
•  Illinois Training Requirements •  Rhode Island Training Requirements
•  Indiana Training Requirements •  South Carolina Training Requirements
•  Iowa Training Requirements •  South Dakota Training Requirements
•  Kansas Training Requirements •  Tennessee Training Requirements
•  Kentucky Training Requirements •  Texas Training Requirements
•  Louisiana Training Requirements •  Utah Training Requirements
•  Maine Training Requirements •  Vermont Training Requirements
•  Maryland Training Requirements •  Virginia Training Requirements
•  Massachusetts Training Requirements •  Washington Training Requirements
•  Michigan Training Requirements •  Washington, D.C. Training Requirements
•  Minnesota Training Requirements •  West Virginia Training Requirements
•  Mississippi Training Requirements •  Wisconsin Training Requirements
•  Missouri Training Requirements •  Wyoming Training Requirements
•  Montana Training Requirements  
Continue reading
425 Hits

Texas leaders call for training on sexual harassment — but can't require it for lawmakers

In Focus: Ebola

Ebola virus

Frederick A. Murphy/CDC

OSHA's Ebola webpage provides a comprehensive source of information for protecting workers from exposure to the Ebola virus.

Highlights

§Eye and Face Protection. OSHA eTool. Provides a comprehensive hazard assessment, information about selecting protective devices for the workplace, as well as OSHA requirements.

§Respiratory Protection. OSHA eTool. Provides information on the development of respirator cartridge change schedules. Addresses respirator selection and other requirements of the standard.

Related Safety and Health Topics Pages

§Eye and Face Protection

§Fall Protection

§Nail Gun Safety

§Respiratory Protection

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/16/texas-leaders-call-training-sexual-harassment-they-cant-require-it-law/

Texas leaders call for training on sexual harassment — but can't require it for lawmakers

Legislative leaders looking to create better training to prevent sexual harassment will likely face a roadblock if they want to get lawmakers in the room. 

by Jolie McCullough, Alexa Ura and Morgan Smith Nov. 16, 2017 4 PM

40

 

An empty corridor at the Capitol.

Bob Daemmrich for The Texas Tribune

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors.

Top Texas lawmakers have called for reviews of sexual harassment policies at the state Capitol following reports detailing how current procedures offered little protection for victims. Proposed solutions have included better training aimed at preventing harassment and informing victims of their rights.

But legislative leaders will likely face a roadblock if they want to force lawmakers into any sort of anti-harassment training: They can’t require it of individual legislators, some of whom were behind the worst behavior recounted to the Tribune. A nearly 20-year-old law that orders training for all employees at other state entities — but not the Legislature — could offer a possible solution.

The complexities behind management at the Capitol means lawmakers are subject to the rules of each chamber but, as elected officials, are largely in control of their own offices.

"There is going to be mandatory training — for everybody," state Rep. Charlie Geren said Thursday of the policy the House is developing. The Fort Worth Republican chairs the House Administration Committee, where sexual harassment complaints are supposed to go under the House’s current policy. “I may not be able to make them do it, but we are going to tell them it’s mandatory."

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

House Speaker Joe Straus acknowledged this limitation Tuesday in his call for the training program.

Through a spokesman’s statement, Straus said he would make the training mandatory for his staff and those employed directly by the chamber, including recordkeepers and payroll personnel. But that mandate fell short of House members. Instead, the statement said Straus would “strongly encourage” them to attend and “ensure” that their staff do as well.

In the Senate, sexual harassment training has been in place for some employees for at least a decade. Patsy Spaw, secretary of the chamber, implemented the program after she took the job in 2001, but she said it only requires staffers employed directly by the Senate to attend, not individual member offices.

“There’s not any policy that requires [training], it’s just me insisting that we do it,” Spaw said.

She noted she’s had “absolute support” from the three lieutenant governors she’s served under who also have required their staffs to attend the training. Some senators require their employees to attend, but senators themselves never do, she said.

In 1999, legislators wrote a law requiring state agencies — including the executive branch, state courts and higher education institutions — to provide employment anti-discrimination training, which covers sexual harassment, for all of their employees every two years.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

But they did not require any training for themselves and their own offices.

It’s unclear whether Straus or Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who leads the Senate, would endorse a change to state statute to add the legislative branch to the list of state entities required to provide training for all employees, including lawmakers. Spokesmen for both legislative leaders did not respond to questions on that topic.

Both asked for reviews of their respective chamber's sexual harassment policies a day after the Tribune detailed flaws in the policies that leave victims to fend for themselves. The Daily Beast had earlier detailed accounts of sexual assault in the Legislature.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Greg Abbott said on Thursday that the governor's office had, at the request of the House and Senate, shared its "agency policy provisions regarding Equal Employment Opportunity training and our complaint process."

Lawmakers in both chambers this week have spoken out in support of mandated training for everyone, including themselves.

State Sen. Sylvia Garcia, D-Houston, previously pointed to a recent measure passed in the U.S. Senate, requiring mandatory sexual harassment training for all senators and their staff. Garcia indicated a tweaked version of that measure — to include both Capitol chambers, state officeholders and their staffs — could work for Texas.

State Rep. Tom Oliverson, a Cypress Republican who sits on the House Administration Committee, endorsed training for both Capitol staffers and legislators.

"Even if there was a point at which that kind of behavior was tolerated, we’re not at that point anymore,” Oliverson said. “This is the 21st century, and I think we all need to grow up, act like adults and treat each other with respect."

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Despite that support, any revisions or policies put into place without legislation would be at the mercy of those currently in power.

The legislative chambers are governed by rules and housekeeping resolutions set at the beginning of every Legislature, which occurs every two years. And rules or processes related to sexual harassment training, like any other chamber rules, can be amended or wiped away at any time the majority of the chamber desires.

For example, Straus, who is retiring, has asked for a training program, but nothing would stop his successor from eliminating it later if it's only adopted as a chamber policy. And Spaw, who runs the program in the Senate, could be replaced by someone who doesn’t carry on with the training.

This dilemma isn’t unique to Texas. Across the country, making rules for “required training and other procedures” for elected officials is “generally left to party and chamber leaders” who change frequently, according to a report by The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Stateline.

If lawmakers did turn to the existing law to require training, the overall statute would probably need to be updated, state Rep. Donna Howard said, to provide guidance for what training programs should look like and penalties to enforce it. But Howard did underline the need for a solution that’s not dependent on elected officials.

Howard, along with other lawmakers, have also indicated that training isn’t the only solution Capitol leaders should consider. Some have called for an independent entity to oversee sexual harassment complaints. Others are seeking more punitive measures for individuals found guilty of misconduct.

"I think whatever method is used, it needs to be one that provides consistency and not be subject to whoever houses a particular office,” Howard, an Austin Democrat who sits on the House Administration Committee, said Thursday. “So if that requires a statute, that’s what it should be."

Edgar Walters contributed to this report.

Help us investigate sexual harassment at the Texas Capitol by confidentially sharing your experience with our reporters. You may contact our reporters directly, or if you're more comfortable contacting us anonymously, send an encrypted message to the Tribune with the messaging app Signal at (512) 745-2713.

For more options on how to send us information securely, visit our tips page.

Read related Tribune coverage:

·        Interviews with more than two dozen current and former lawmakers and legislative aides indicate sexual harassment regularly goes unchecked at the Texas Capitol. And sexual harassment policies rely on officials with little incentive or authority to enforce them, particularly in cases of harassment by lawmakers. [Full story]

·        Lawmakers in the Texas House and Senate called for a review of sexual harassment policies Tuesday following a Texas Tribune story detailing how current procedures offered little protection for victims. [Full story]

·        Analysis: It's hard to argue that Texas lawmakers do as much as they could to protect the victims of sexual harassment in the state Capitol — staffers, lobbyists and even some female lawmakers. It's been a boys club for a long, long time. [Full story]

Get The Brief

Never miss a moment in Texas politics with our daily newsletter.

 

 

Continue reading
276 Hits

Blog Archive

February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
March
April
May
July
August
September
October
January
February
April
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November

Get a 10% Discount in Your Inbox

Where to find us?

Address
Compliance Learning Solutions, LLC
395 Sawdust Road, Suite 2136
The Woodlands, Texas 77380-2299
Phone Number
1-888-447-5517
Email
contactus@complyls.com