Unformatted text preview: Employment Employment Discrimination
The most important federal antidiscrimination laws are: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The Equal Pay Act.
The Americans with Disabilities Act.
We’ll focus on sexual harassment (Title VII) and the ADA. Title VII of the
Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, and national origin. “Sex” now includes pregnancy.
In addition to prohibiting religious discrimination, employers must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices.
Enforcement of Title VII by EEOC. Gender Discrimination
Gender Discrimination Two types of sex discrimination: – Differential treatment.
– Sexual harassment: Hostile Work Environment. Quid Pro Quo. Sexual Harassment
Sexual Harassment Although Title VII does not specifically mention sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination to include a prohibition against sexual harassment.
There are currently two forms of recognized sexual harassment:
– Hostile Work Environment.
– Quid Pro Quo. Hostile Work Environment
Hostile Work Environment Hostile environment occurs when workplace is “permeated” with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, insult so severe to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment. The conduct in the workplace must be offensive to a reasonable person as well as to the victim, and it must be severe and pervasive. Harassment by Harassment by Supervisors Quid Pro Quo harassment involves the demands for sexual favors by a superior from a subordinate, in exchange for some workplace benefit.
Under certain conditions, an employer may be liable for the quid pro quo harassment committed by its supervisory employees. Supreme Court Guidelines
Supreme Court Guidelines Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998). – Employer (city) could be liable for supervisor’s harassment even though the employer was unaware of the conduct. Harassment policies and procedures had not be distributed among employees. Burlington Industries v. Ellerth (1998). – Company liable for harassment even though the employee suffered no adverse job consequences. Supreme Court Guidelines
Supreme Court Guidelines
(cont’d) Employers have a defense if: – They took “reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior” by establishing and distributing effective harassment policies and procedures.
– That the employee suing for harassment failed to follow these policies and procedures. Harassment by CoWorkers
Harassment by CoWorkers Employer generally liable only if employer knew or should have known and failed to take action. – Employee notice to supervisor is notice to Employer under agency law. Employers may also be liable for harassment by nonemployees.
Samesex harassment also violates Title VII. ...
View Full Document
- Spring '08
- Law, HARASSMENT, Quid pro quo