Tag: harassment

Oregon Supreme Court Affirms That Employers Can Be Liable for Post-Employment Retaliation

Oregon employers should be aware of the Oregon Supreme Court’s recent decision in McLaughlin v. Wilson, 365 Or 535, __ P3d __ (2019).  In McLaughlin, the court was asked to decide the scope of ORS 659A.030(1)(f), which makes it unlawful “[f]or any person to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any other person because that other person” … Continue Reading

California Employers Gain Time to Meet New Training Requirements for Employees

On August 30, 2019, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 778, extending for one year the deadline for providing harassment prevention training to employees.  California employers now have until January 1, 2021 to provide the sexual harassment prevention training mandated by SB 1343, which took effect on January 1, 2019. SB 1343 requires an employer … Continue Reading

California Employers: Have You Complied with the New Training Requirements?

Effective January 1, 2019, employers that employ five or more employees in California must provide one hour of harassment and abusive conduct prevention training to all nonsupervisory employees, and two hours of such training to supervisory employees. This mandatory training must be provided by January 1, 2020, and once every two years thereafter. Under the … Continue Reading

Washington Supreme Court Announces Zero-Tolerance Approach to Sexual Harassment in Places of Public Accommodation

The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) prohibits “places of public accommodation” from discriminating against their customers on the basis of several protected characteristics, including, without limitation, sex, race, national origin, and sexual orientation. Sexual harassment is one prohibited form of such sex-based discrimination.  Generally speaking, a place of public accommodation is any business that is … Continue Reading

California Supreme Court Clarifies When a Franchisee’s Employees Can Bring Employment Claims Against the Franchisor in Taylor Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC

In Taylor Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, the California Supreme Court restricted the ability of a franchisee’s employees to sue the franchisor based on theories of vicarious liability and the theory that the franchisor was an “employer” under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). With this decision, franchisors can breathe a sigh of relief as … Continue Reading

No Harassment, No Problem: Idaho Court Holds Harassing Comments May Still Support Liability for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

A November 27, 2013 opinion from the Idaho Supreme Court reinstated a former Assistant Vice Principal’s claim seeking damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress. This decision highlights that allegedly harassing workplace comments may subject employers to liability even though e the complaining employee cannot make out a traditional sexual harassment claim.  In Frogley v. Meridian … Continue Reading

New California Law Provides that Sexual Desire Is Not a Required Element in a Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

In a same-sex sexual harassment case, does the plaintiff need to prove that the alleged harasser’s conduct was motivated by sexual desire?  Under SB 292, a law signed by Governor Brown a few days ago, the answer in California is "no."    A key question when dealing with a sexual harassment claim under California’s Fair Employment … Continue Reading

Part 2 of 2: Supreme Court Rules That “Supervisors” Under Title VII Must Have Power to Take Tangible Employment Actions

On Monday, we blogged about the first of two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar.  Today, we’ll discuss the second decision, Vance v. Ball State University, which addressed who is a “supervisor” for vicarious liability purposes … Continue Reading

Our Festivus Present to Oregon Employers: Ten Things You Should Know for 2010

Wow, it’s Festivus already, which means that in just a few short days it will be a brand new year!  We have a Festivus present for Oregon employers to help you get ready:  Ten things you need to know for 2010!  (click on each blue hotlink for more information) All Oregon employers are required to post the SB … Continue Reading

Oregon Court of Appeals Upholds Claim of Negligent Failure to Investigate

In Steele v. Mayoral et al., the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that a plaintiff could take to the jury her claim that her employer had failed to prevent sexual harassment by her supervisor by not investigating earlier incidents about the supervisor’s relationships with other employees. The plaintiff, a high school guidance counselor, was dating … Continue Reading

“Blonde Jokes” Support Workplace Emotional Distress Claim

Usually when I get an employment lawsuit alleging "negligent infliction of emotional distress," I chuckle to myself and immediately begin drafting a motion to dismiss.  However, a recent case out of the Washington Court of Appeals may indicate that NIED claims are not totally frivolous! In Strong v. Wright, the plaintiff sued her former supervisor because … Continue Reading

Howard Stern + Work = Hostile Work Environment

The Eleventh Circuit (which covers Alabama, Florida and Georgia) held late last month that a female employee was subjected to an unlawful hostile work environment on the basis of her sex in part because of "vulgar radio programming" that was played daily in her workplace. Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., No. 07-10270, April 28, … Continue Reading
LexBlog