Bookmark and Share
Contact Us
Services
About Us | Home| Testimonials
bLAWg
Your Employee Rights
New Law
Employee Rights Commentary
Site Map
Articles
Employee Rights Videos
Employee Rights Events Calendar
FIRM NEWS
Search Entire Site

Harassment Directed Toward Women

Harassment DIrected Toward Women

Case: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. National Education Association, Alaska, 04-35029.

The victims: Three female employees of the National Education Association's Alaska affiliate, all of whom alleged that they had been subjected to a hostile working environment.

Precedent/"Old law": Direct evidence is required to show that harassing conduct towards these female employees was "because of sex" (i.e., harassment would not have occurred if they were male).

What happened in this case: The women were subject to "frequent, profane, and often public" tirades by their supervisor Harvey, who frequently yelled at them for no reason, used foul language, and occasionally made intimidating physical gestures.

While Harvey did publicly criticize male workers within the office, he was much less aggressive about it than he was with the women. He also showed a greater willingness to resolve matters more amicably with the men. Unlike the male employees, the female employees testified that they cried, felt panicked and threatened, avoided contact with Harvey, called the police, and ultimately resigned their employment because of the alleged conduct.

Other witnesses, including male employees, confirmed those accounts.

Court's Holding

What the court held: Overturning the district court's ruling in favor of NEA-Alaska which held that the alleged harassment was not "because...of sex" within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Ninth Circuit held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to conclude that Harvey treated the men and women in the office differently by creating "general fear" in the women. The Court held that the appropriate factual inquiry was whether the supervisor's treatment of women differed sufficiently in quality and quantity from his treatment of men to support a claim for sex discrimination.

The Court held that the motive in which the abusive supervisor took advantange of a female workplace because he could bully the women easier than the men was no "less because of sex than a motive involving sexual frustration, desire, or simply a motive to exclude or expel women from the workplace." The Court mentioned that in such situations, it did not necessarily matter that some men were also harassed.

Employee Rights Attorney Frank Pray

5160 Campus Drive

Newport Beach CA 92660

949.251.1006

877.job.atty


OBTAIN YOUR FREE

CASE EVALUATION

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Enter Your Email Address to Sign Up for Free Practical Tips on How to Assert Your Employee Rights
For Email Marketing you can trust

Amazon.com Coupons