New Legislation Opens Floodgates to Formerly Time-Barred Sex Harassment Claims
New York's new legislation, signed into law in August 2019 and effective February 2020, extends the statute of limitations from one to three years for complainants seeking redress regarding workplace sexual harassment claims.
December 06, 2019 at 03:07 PM
3 minute read
Three populous and trend-setting states—New Jersey, New York, and California—recently enacted new laws that provide a vast window of opportunity for complainants to bring otherwise time-barred claims of sexual assault, abuse, or harassment.
New Jersey's legislation, effective December 1, 2019, extends broader rights to individuals seeking to bring claims of sexual assault, harassment, or abuse against organizations. Complainants bringing such claims will now have a two-year window in which to file a complaint. Under the new law, victims of child sexual abuse may bring claims against individuals and public or private institutions until they reach age 55, or up to seven years after discovering the abuse. The New Jersey law also voids all private agreements that settle class claims of sexual abuse, requiring employers to address such claims individually.
New York's new legislation, signed into law in August 2019 and effective February 2020, extends the statute of limitations from one to three years for complainants seeking redress regarding workplace sexual harassment claims. The law also requires courts to interpret the New York Human Rights Law liberally—regardless of federal law—to allow contractors, vendors, and other non-employee complainants the same ability to file complaints of workplace harassment as employees.
California's new Stop Harassment and Reporting Extension (SHARE) Act, effective January 1, 2020, will extend the time period within which employees may bring a claim of workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation with the California Department of Fair Housing and Employment ("DFEH") from one to three years. The Act also allows claimants a period of one year after filing their DFEH charge to file a civil lawsuit. Combined, the SHARE Act's extensions of time to file DFEH charges and civil lawsuits may expose employers to previously time-barred claims of harassment and assault.
Other states may well follow the lead of New Jersey, New York, and California, and employers must be prepared for a potential outpouring of new complaints involving conduct that occurred well in the past. An employer should assess its potential exposure by identifying areas of vulnerability, including settlement agreements that are now void under New Jersey law; claims dismissed on statute of limitations grounds that may now be raised; prior conduct that was previously not raised due to fear of retaliation; and potentially actionable conduct of current employees.
In addition to performing its own risk analysis, an employer must also investigate and address all claims of sexual harassment and abuse. Investigating age-old claims brings its own challenges, including collecting documents and eliciting necessary information from witnesses with faded memories. It is critical to properly manage communications and workplace relationships, including those between the complainant, alleged harasser, witnesses, and other involved employees. Employers must also be ready to handle public relations and media communications regarding potentially high-profile, high-stakes, reputation-impacting coverage.
Employers and organizations should take this opportunity to examine their culture, both present and past. Doing so may help prevent litigation and limit exposure. It will also create a vibrant environment free from harassment, which will increase employee morale, help to retain top talent, and bolster the employer's reputation as a place where employees can thrive.
Sara Begley, Jeremy Sternberg and Dana Feinstein
Holland & Knight LLP
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 AllLetter to the Editor: Law Journal Used Misleading Photo for Article on Election Observers
1 minute readNYC's Administrative Court's to Publish Some Rulings in the New York Law Journal Is Welcomed. But It Should Go Further
4 minute readAllowing Elections Boards to Count Absentee Ballots Early Benefits Voters
2 minute readTrending 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