At least that’s the advice one lawyer gave in a speech to the annual convention of SHRM, the human resources managers’ group. [HR Daily Advisor citing Jonathan Segal of Duane Morris, via Hyman]
{ 4 comments }
Posts tagged as:
hostile environment
The Eleventh Circuit has agreed to reconsider its decision last year allowing an offended employee to sue for sexual harassment over crude sexual language not directed at her, among the sources of which was a Birmingham morning talk show. [CEI "Open Market", Fulton County Daily Report, Eugene Volokh; our earlier report]
{ 1 comment }
That lawprof chatfest promoting the idea of wider rights to sue over online speech has provoked a bit of a furor; see addenda to our earlier post as well as continuing coverage at Scott Greenfield’s site. Good! Better to have a controversy now than wait until after some academic consensus has already hardened around a MacKinnonite “of course we need to let people sue more widely over speech, or else women’s voices will be silenced” position.
The episode has also helped spin off a second, tangential controversy taking the form of a new round in the ongoing dispute between some “practical” law bloggers and their counterparts in legal academia, on which see Greenfield and Marc John Randazza.
{ 2 comments }
Readers may recall the remarkable case last year in which student employee Keith John Sampson was hauled up on university disciplinary charges at IUPUI (Indiana University) for supposed racial harassment because a co-worker had observed him reading a book about the historical struggle against the Klan. A successful campaign ensued (led by FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) to get the discipline reversed and an apology issued. Now filmmaker Andrew Marcus has produced a short documentary about the incident, viewable at FIRE’s site.
{ 3 comments }
Reversing a trial court that had granted summary judgment to the defense, a court of appeals in Washington state has reinstated a suit entitled Strong v. Wright in which
the plaintiff sued her former supervisor because he told “blonde jokes” (apparently plaintiff was blonde), made fun of her house, ridiculed her husband’s job, and referred to her as a “bum mother” because she put her son in therapy. The plaintiff alleged that this treatment “caused her to vomit and to have anxiety attacks, depression, and heart palpitations.” Really. Blonde jokes=heart palpitations.
Dennis Whitlind at World of Work has more (Nov. 14)(via O’Keefe).
{ 2 comments }
Earlier this year Ted wrote an item titled “Implausible defense department” about American Apparel founder Dov Charney’s efforts to explain away jaw-droppingly colorful facts in the latest of the multiple sexual harassment complaints he has faced. The sequel is worthy of what has gone before: it appears that Charney faked an agreement to send the case to arbitration to conceal a deal in which he agreed to settle the claim for $1.3 million. The deal later fell apart and the case is headed back for (presumably genuine) litigation. (On Point News, Workplace Prof Blog).
P.S. Overlawyered guestblogger Victoria Pynchon, of the IP ADR Blog, has now posted a more extensive and detailed report on the case, & see Nov. 16 update with company’s side of the story.
{ 4 comments }
