EEOC presents advice on harassment by third-parties just in time for the holiday season
This is a popular time of year for many companies to hold a holiday office party.
December 10, 2012 at 05:44 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This is a popular time of year for many companies to hold a holiday office party. Such events can establish camaraderie between employees, offer an opportunity to recognize the success of the past year, and motivate employees to work hard for the employer in the future. One practical tip that many follow to reduce potential liability with a holiday party is to allow staff to bring their significant other, another guest, or even clients to the big event. This may be done in hopes of curtailing any questionable behavior that might result in a charge of unlawful harassment and making sure everything remains “grandma-approved.”
Just in time for the holiday office party, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reminded the public about an employer's potential liability when guests behave inappropriately. In an informal discussion letter released to the public on Nov. 7 the EEOC addressed the topic of harassment by third-parties. The letter, specifically answering questions pertaining to citizen harassment of law enforcement officers, highlights that the employer's response to harassment is most significant. The EEOC advises that employers can avoid liability by taking reasonable steps to prevent harassment by third parties. The reasonableness of that response depends on the totality of the circumstances. Elements that may be considered include “the nature of the alleged harassment, the specific context in which it arose and practical limitations on the employer's ability to respond to the harassment.”
Undoubtedly, employers may very likely confront circumstances of third-party harassment of employees at the office holiday party. Guests and clients who are invited to attend are just as susceptible to unruly behavior as those on the company's payroll.
A popular example in the employment law world is Stathatos v. Gala Resources, LLC,. In defeating summary judgment, the plaintiffs presented evidence that a client at the holiday party aggressively grabbed and chased the plaintiff throughout the night. Rather than help the plaintiff, a supervisor who was approached over this conduct teased the plaintiff by suggesting the client liked her and wanted to date her. Employers confronted with similar circumstances should know that this is unlikely to be interpreted as a reasonable response by the EEOC investigating a charge.
As with any complaint of harassment or other sexual discrimination, employers must take any allegations seriously. Not only should the employer conduct a prompt investigation, but it must implement a reasonable response to any conclusions it draws. Failing to take either of these basic steps will very likely risk leaving the employer in a position that is difficult to defend if an employee decides to file suit.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAfter 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
2024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
Financial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250