Stemming the Increasing Tide of Unlawful Workplace Harassment
It is undeniable that there has been a noticeable uptick in incidents of racist and xenophobic harassment across the country. While this behavior is often publicized when it occurs between civilians at the local grocery store, such incidents are increasingly prevalent in the employment context and can take place between and among all levels of employees. Harassing behavior can occur by supervisors and managers against subordinates by and between co-workers, and by nonemployees against employees.
June 22, 2017 at 04:22 PM
5 minute read
It is undeniable that there has been a noticeable uptick in incidents of racist and xenophobic harassment across the country. While this behavior is often publicized when it occurs between civilians at the local grocery store, such incidents are increasingly prevalent in the employment context and can take place between and among all levels of employees. Harassing behavior can occur by supervisors and managers against subordinates by and between co-workers, and by nonemployees against employees.
In 2016, charges of workplace racial and religious discrimination filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rose for the first time in five years. These charges often centered on allegations of harassment. Last year, harassment charges filed with the EEOC reached a seven-year high. Prompted by the dramatic increase in harassment complaints, the EEOC recently issued a 95-page report on unlawful harassment in the workplace. In the report, titled “Report of the Co-Chairs of the EEOC Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace,” the EEOC highlighted that nearly one-third of the approximately 90,000 charges received by the EEOC in 2015 included an allegation of workplace harassment. Additionally, the report mentions a study which found that up to 60 percent of employees have experienced either racially or ethnically motivated harassment in the workplace.
The rise of EEOC harassment charges is particularly worrisome for employers because in addition to the potential legal liability, unchecked harassment erodes workplace harmony, decreases productivity, reduces employee job satisfaction and may impair an employer's ability to retain good employees. In light of these realities, employers would do well to take all reasonable steps to help stem the tide of harassment in the workplace, and if harassment does occur, take prompt and effective steps to remediate the effects of the harassment and to prevent any further harassing behavior. The first critical step involves performing a thorough and critical review of current anti-harassment policies to ensure compliance with local, state and federal laws. Anti-harassment policies are often dense and difficult for employees to navigate. Employers should review, and if need be, revamp, their policies to ensure that they are comprehensible. In crafting or revising an anti-harassment policy employers should keep in mind that the goal of effective anti-harassment policies is to provide clear expectations of what behavior is inappropriate in the workplace. To that end, it would be helpful to include a nonexhaustive list of harassing behavior to assist employees in understanding the type of behavior that may rise to the level of unlawful harassment.
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
© 2025 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1More Litigation Coming? Insulin MDL Gets Boost from FTC Report
- 2Judge Spends 3 Hours Explaining His Decision
- 3Morgan Lewis Closes Shenzhen Office Less Than 2 Years After Launch
- 4On The Move: Freeman Mathis & Gary Adds Florida Partners, Employment Pro Joins Jackson Lewis
- 5New Trouble for Allstate: National Class Action Targets Insurer
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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