Tag: severe and pervasive

Sexual Harassment In the Workplace: Steps for SMBs to Avoid Liability Under Title VII

November 4, 2021

When an employee comes forward with a sexual harassment claim, they expect their employers to respond constructively to get justice served. However, several small business company executives often dismiss these cases, with little or nothing done to find a resolution.

And when senior managers ignore sexual harassment complaints in this manner, the following line of action for the victim is a costly and lengthy lawsuit.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination or harassment of any sort; thus, any litigation against your business will have you facing the law in its full wrath.

As a business owner, you want to avoid this scenario; as such, you should address sexual harassment in your workplace even before it rears its head. With that in mind, we provide you with some helpful tips to prevent sexual harassment in your business.

How to Address Sexual Harassment as a Small or Medium-sized Business

Sexual harassment cases are challenging to handle. Here are some constructive ways to deal with sexual harassment in the office:

  1. Set Internal Policies and Regulations

When there are no rules guiding employee conduct in your company, your staff can exhibit any form of inappropriate behavior because they feel anything goes. Thus, you need company policies and rules that define acceptable conduct within the office premises and prohibits sexual harassment or any discriminatory behavior. These corporate laws should also specify the consequences of harassing employees or clients sexually.

You should also have these regulations in print and ensure every employee has them, regardless of their role. New employees must get a copy immediately after employment, and you’ll need to have extensive training sessions with them on how workers should relate with and treat each other. Existing staff members should also receive regular training to re-emphasize the company’s stance on sexual harassment and the repercussions of such behavior.

1 Enforce the Rules

Don’t make laws and throw them out the window when the time comes to enforce them. Ensure you take every sexual harassment allegation in your company seriously, regardless of whether the offender is a senior staff or a junior employee.

Set up an HR committee or department to investigate these claims and take appropriate action when you discover the truth. When you show zero tolerance to sexually inappropriate behavior in the workplace, your employees will conform to their attitudes accordingly.

2 Cultivate a Work Environment of Respect and Equality

While sexual harassment isn’t gender-neutral, we can all agree that women are victims of sexually inappropriate behavior more than men. As such, it’s vital to establish a work environment where everyone is respected, regardless of gender.

Ensure that every staff member receives equal treatment and has the same opportunities to thrive. It’d help if you also addressed gender-limiting biases head-on.

For example, some stereotypes that define women sexually according to what they wear or their race play significant roles in the high rate of sexual harassment towards the feminine gender.

It would be best to ensure these prejudiced views aren’t found in your firm. You shouldn’t even tolerate them as workplace banter. Men also face some of these biases, so they shouldn’t be left out of the conversation.

Furthermore, there should be consequences whenever an employee is disrespected in any way.

3 Empower Your Employees

Often, the victims of sexual harassment face discrimination and abuse whenever they come forward, even from coworkers who should know better and treat them with empathy. On that note, ensure to create a work environment where your staff members can speak up without retaliation from anyone, including their offenders.

Make your staff know that they can trust the company to act in their best interest whenever they’re victims of any form of discrimination, regardless of their gender or social status. With so many sexual harassment cases swept under the carpet, your company should stand out and make a difference.

Conclusion

Sexual harassment is still prevalent in American workplaces, despite having more media coverage with several conversations to see victims get justice. That said, if you’re battling with a sexual harassment case in your workplace or would like to take proactive measures to prevent them, we recommend you seek legal representation to help you out. Reach out to us today at The Law Office of Sheri Oluyemi, and let’s bring our extensive experience in employment law to your aid.

Encounters of the Hostile Kind: What Do You Need to Prove a Racially Based Hostile Work Environment?  

March 20, 2019

Meet Brenda Smelter. She is a black woman that was hired by Southern Home Care Services, Inc. d/b/a/ ResCare Homecare in July 2013 as a Customer Service Supervisor. She was the only black person who worked in her office, she replaced a white employee who was away from the office on maternity leave. Brenda struggled with performing her job but most distressing at work was that she often overheard co-workers making racist comments about black people; sometimes these comments were made directly to her face and in the presence of others, including members of management.

The severity of these racist comments peaked on the last day of her employment when a co-worker called her a “dumb black nigger” during an argument. According to Smelter, she was fired for reporting this epithet, along with her co-workers’ other racist comments, to her direct supervisor. The reason Southern Care provided for the termination was “poor fit” citing performance concerns and chaos. After her termination, she was replaced by a white employee, in addition to the return of her predecessor, also white, from maternity leave.

Brenda sued Southern Home under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, asserting claims for discriminatory termination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Smelter contends that Southern Home (1) discriminated against her by permitting a hostile work environment to exist at the office, (2) discriminated against her by terminating her because of her race, and (3) retaliated against her for reporting her co-workers’ racist comments.

After the case was dismissed by the District Court, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that Smelter’s discriminatory termination and retaliation claims fail because she provided insufficient evidence of pretext in response to Southern Home’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her. But the 11th Circuit Court disagreed that, as a matter of law, the harassment Smelter suffered was not severe or pervasive and Southern Home lacked notice of that harassment.

Thus, in October 2018, the 11th Circuit Court gave us a recent window into the elements required to establish a racially based hostile work environment claim.

To prove a hostile work environment claim, an employee must show that “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” When the employee’s harassment claim is based on her race, she must prove five elements: (1) she belongs to a protected class, (2) she was subjected to unwelcome harassment, (3) the harassment was based on her race, (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms of her employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment, and (5) the employer is responsible for the environment.

Typically at issue, as was the case here, is the “severe and pervasive” threshold. To establish that harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of her employment, an employee must prove that her work environment was both subjectively and objectively hostile. In other words, the employee must first establish that she “subjectively perceive[d] the environment to be abusive.” Then she also must satisfy the objective component by showing that her work environment was one “that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive.”

Beginning with Smelter’s subjective perception of her work environment. Smelter repeatedly testified that enduring her co-workers’ racist comments was stressful and hurtful. She also explained that it felt like the harassment “never stopp[ed],” as though her co-workers were pushing her to “see how much she [could] take” in the hopes that she would “just quit and leave.” The Court found this testimony sufficient to demonstrate subjective belief in the severity and pervasiveness of the conduct.

The employer objected that Smelter’s failure to report the incidents indicate a lack of subjective believe in the harassment. Precedent recognizes, however, that an employee’s failure to report harassment is not dispositive of whether the employee perceived the environment created by the harassment as hostile or abusive. 

Regarding objectivity, the facts sufficient to meet this threshold were: 

1.    Pervasiveness, also known as Frequency

Smelter endured racist remarks by her co-workers nearly every day that she worked in that office. There were at least 8 racist comments in 2 months that Smelter could recall with specificity.

2.    Severity

Brenda endured the following comments: black men were “lazy” and “the scum of the earth; “black women[] ha[d] babies on welfare,” President Barack Obama’s “big ears” made him “look[] like a monkey,” and she did not know that black people could be buried on Sundays; Smelter’s hair made her look like a “mixed monkey” from the movie Planet of the Apes; an occasion when black people were exiting a bus at a Wal-Mart store was described as looking like they were “chained together.”; and a desire expressed to “send them all back . . . to Africa.”. A co-worker “jumped up . . in a rage” and said “get out of my office . . . you dumb black nigger.” in doing so she “hit the desk” like she was about “to charge at” Smelter. 

 The Court held that these comments were directed at Brenda to humiliate her and were egregious even just once because it was preceded by two months of related abuse, thus, they were severe.

3.    “Physically threatening or humiliating”

See point number 2; the comments were severely humiliating. The Court stated that “physical threat” is not always a dispositive requirement.

4.    Altered job performance is optional in light of totality of other circumstances 

Indeed, “[t]he Supreme Court has cautioned that harassment need not be . . . so extreme that it produces tangible effects on job performance in order to be actionable.”

5.    Because the comments were made by co-workers, management needed to be aware or made aware of the harassing conduct and must also have failed to take prompt remedial action

Here, there was a concession that no report was made until the day of termination but there might have been actual notice because Smelter testified that everyone thought the slurs were funny and that others, including management, overheard the slurs. Smelter also testified that members of management overheard these comments and were amused by them, but she never made a formal report until the day of her termination. 

Take away for employees making this claim: this case demonstrates the type of hostility that makes the threshold for a hostile work environment claim.

Take away for employers defending such a claim: the company must take prompt remedial action if any members of management have actual or constructive notice of this type of hostility.