HR Support on Preventing and Responding to Harassment at Work

Editor's Note: Identify and eliminate harassing behavior based on protected class status.

Beth P. ZollerOverview: In addition to sexual harassment in the workplace, federal law as well as most state law prohibits harassment against an individual based on his or her membership in a protected class. Therefore, individuals are protected from harassment based on race, national origin, religion, etc. Harassment may take the form of using insulting epithets, slurs or negative stereotypes; making rude and offensive jokes; threatening, intimidating or hostile acts; or written and graphic material such as cartoons that insult a particular individual or group based on that individual's or group's protected class.

To eliminate workplace harassment, employers should have a policy in place that strictly prohibits harassing behavior of any kind. All employees and supervisors should be provided with training on the policy. Further, employers should designate a multichannel reporting system to allow employees to bring workplace harassment complaints to the employer's attention. Further, employers should immediately respond to any complaints of harassment by investigating the matter and taking corrective action.

Trends: The EEOC has identified preventing harassment through systemic enforcement as well as targeted outreach and education efforts as one of its priorities in the most recent Strategic Enforcement plan. As such. there a significant number of harassment lawsuits being brought by the EEOC as well as individuals based on race, age, religion etc. As the workplace becomes more diverse, this has led to an increase in harassment suits of all kinds.

In Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. (2013), the Supreme Court issued a critical decision which makes it more difficult for employees to prove that an employer is vicariously liable for a supervisor’s discriminatory or harassing conduct. Specifically, the Court held that a supervisor must be someone with the direct power and authority to take tangible employment actions against an employee. This issue is of primary importance when determining whether an employer is vicariously liable for a supervisor's actions in cases of harassment. Under the current law, if the harasser is a supervisor, the employer is automatically vicariously liable for the supervisor's actions. If the harasser is not a supervisor, the plaintiff must prove that the employer was negligent and that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment in order to be liable. This is a much higher burden to meet.

Author: Beth P. Zoller, JD, Legal Editor

Latest items in Harassment

  • Multistate Employer

    Type:
    Employment Law Manual

    Multistate employers face the challenge of complying with not only federal laws, but also differing state and local laws. This section highlights some of the states' differences in terms of preemployment testing and background checks, noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreements, and discrimination, pay and leave rules.

  • EEO Handbook Statement: Hawaii

    Type:
    Employee Handbooks

    Hawaii employers should consider including this model policy statement in their handbook.

  • EEO Handbook Statement: Illinois

    Type:
    Employee Handbooks

    Illinois employers should consider including this model policy statement in their handbook.

  • EEO Handbook Statement: Minnesota

    Type:
    Employee Handbooks

    Minnesota employers should consider including this model policy statement in their handbook.

  • Sexual and Other Unlawful Harassment Handbook Statement: Rhode Island

    Type:
    Employee Handbooks

    Rhode Island employers with 50 or more employees should consider including this model policy statement in their handbook

  • New Jersey Employers May Defeat Sexual Harassment Claims With Sound Policies

    Date:
    17 February 2015
    Type:
    News

    Exercising reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexual harassment makes it possible for an employer to establish an affirmative defense to claims that it is liable for a supervisor's harassment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in Aguas v. State.

  • EEO Handbook Statement: Connecticut

    Type:
    Employee Handbooks

    Connecticut employers should consider including this model policy statement in their handbook.

  • Jury Reaches Verdict on Faruqi Sexual Harassment Case Under New York City Ordinance

    Date:
    10 February 2015
    Type:
    News

    The jury in the highly publicized sexual harassment case, Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi, has reached a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on her hostile work environment claim under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

  • EEO Handbook Statement: Oregon

    Type:
    Employee Handbooks

    Oregon employers should consider including this model policy statement in their handbook.

  • EEO Handbook Statement: District of Columbia

    Type:
    Employee Handbooks

    District of Columbia employers with one or more employees within the District of Columbia should consider including this model policy statement in their handbook.

About this topic

HR guidance on preventing and responding to workplace harassment, including instituting a policy, providing training to employees and supervisors, and immediately investigating harassment complaints.