March 3, 2009

Athletic Club to Pay $161K to Settle Harassment Suit

Filed under: Harrasment — Tags: , , , — Jane @ 8:05 am

A Maryland athletic club has agreed to pay $161,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

In the lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Big Vanilla Athletic Club violated federal law by sexually harassing several female employees at the company’s locations in Pasadena and Arnold , Maryland . The agency said that the women were subjected to repeated and unwanted sexually offensive remarks and sexual advances. Further, the EEOC charged that three women were fired in retaliation for their complaints.

In addition to paying $161,000, the company agreed to train current and future managers on anti-discrimination laws and to post notices stating its commitment to maintaining an environment free of sexual harassment and retaliation.

In fiscal year 2007, retaliation charges surged 18 percent to a record high level of 26,663, making retaliation the second-highest charge category (behind race) for the first time ever. Additionally, sexual harassment filings increased for the first time since fiscal year 2000, numbering 12,510, a 4 percent increase from the prior fiscal year.

Source: HR.BLR.com

Share

January 28, 2009

Avoiding Retaliation Nightmares Just Got Tougher

Filed under: Legal Issues — Tags: , , , , , — Jane @ 1:23 pm

Discrimination cases get the big headlines.  Often they include juicy tidbits involving sexual harassment or extremely boorish behavior by a Cro-Magnon boss.  It’s true that employment law cases involving discriminatory actions can be costly, time consuming, demoralizing, and embarrassing to an organization.  But don’t forget about the retaliation minefield.  The number of retaliation claims are growing and they’re often included with discrimination claims.     

The January 26, 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville has made things a little more interesting.  Well, maybe not “interesting” but certainly more complicated and potentially risky for employers.  The Court “clarified” and expanded the scope of Title VII retaliation protections.   The Court held that an employee, who answers questions and conveys information about discriminatory conduct during an internal investigation, is engaging in “protected activity” under Title VII.  Surprisingly, to me at least, some lower courts had found that such involvement would not constitute “active” opposition under Title VII. 

(more…)

Share