|
|
|
Much of the time, the conduct is subtle, perhaps unnoticed by other employees.
Often, it’s ignored by those it discomfits or offends, largely because walking away is easier and a safer career move. Despite this, sexual behaviors on the job are improper in just about all circumstances and illegal in many of them.
Employees in Massachusetts have the right to insist that they stop, and employers have the duty to ensure that they do.
When business fails in this duty, the law of sexual harassment can come into play. This normally happens when management doesn’t implement a strong anti-harassment policy or explain what’s allowed in the workplace and what isn’t.
To be sure, telling the difference can be challenging. Sexual harassment claims require a pattern of misconduct that affects a victim’s ability to do his or her job, and there is no clear line demarcating when conduct becomes illegal.
The key to beating claims is avoiding them in the first place, since litigating sexual harassment issues is a time-consuming, costly endeavor that often leaves both parties wondering who won and who lost.
Both for this reason and because sexual misconduct at work is offensive and inappropriate, Massachusetts law is geared toward stopping it before it becomes a legal problem.
Employers of six or more workers must have written anti-harassment policies that generally define inappropriate conduct, provide a complaint and investigative procedure and inform employees they can complain to the state’s commission against discrimination if they see fit.
The law also suggests but doesn’t require that management employees be trained on sexual harassment so they can act as watchdogs against misconduct.
Companies that don’t implement anti-harassment policies in good faith and do all they can to eliminate misconduct at work can face steep penalties from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), which has the power to both award damages to injured workers and to order employers to undertake expensive training and other steps to reduce the risk of future sexual misconduct.
For employer and employee alike, then, a company’s anti-harassment policy should be seen as a safety net against lawsuits that neither side should be a hurry to engage in. Employers should promote their policies and encourage internal complaints so that they can identify misconduct early on and put a stop to it.
Employees should see the policy as a tool they can turn to for help when, for example, their requests that sexual behaviors stop are not heeded. When workers are afraid to complain under an anti-harassment policy, problems fester and lawsuits can result.
Much of the time, the conduct is subtle, perhaps unnoticed by other employees.
Often, it’s ignored by those it discomfits or offends, largely because walking away is easier and a safer career move. Despite this, sexual behaviors on the job are improper in just about all circumstances and illegal in many of them.
Employees in Massachusetts have the right to insist that they stop, and employers have the duty to ensure that they do.
When business fails in this duty, the law of sexual harassment can come into play. This normally happens when management doesn’t implement a strong anti-harassment policy or explain what’s allowed in the workplace and what isn’t.
To be sure, telling the difference can be challenging. Sexual harassment claims require a pattern of misconduct that affects a victim’s ability to do his or her job, and there is no clear line demarcating when conduct becomes illegal.
The key to beating claims is avoiding them in the first place, since litigating sexual harassment issues is a time-consuming, costly endeavor that often leaves both parties wondering who won and who lost.
Both for this reason and because sexual misconduct at work is offensive and inappropriate, Massachusetts law is geared toward stopping it before it becomes a legal problem.
Employers of six or more workers must have written anti-harassment policies that generally define inappropriate conduct, provide a complaint and investigative procedure and inform employees they can complain to the state’s commission against discrimination if they see fit.
The law also suggests but doesn’t require that management employees be trained on sexual harassment so they can act as watchdogs against misconduct.
Companies that don’t implement anti-harassment policies in good faith and do all they can to eliminate misconduct at work can face steep penalties from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), which has the power to both award damages to injured workers and to order employers to undertake expensive training and other steps to reduce the risk of future sexual misconduct.
For employer and employee alike, then, a company’s anti-harassment policy should be seen as a safety net against lawsuits that neither side should be a hurry to engage in. Employers should promote their policies and encourage internal complaints so that they can identify misconduct early on and put a stop to it.
Employees should see the policy as a tool they can turn to for help when, for example, their requests that sexual behaviors stop are not heeded. When workers are afraid to complain under an anti-harassment policy, problems fester and lawsuits can result.
So what is sexual harassment? The law defines two distinct types.
1. Hostile work environment sexual harassment is the more common type. It occurs when sexual behavior is unwelcome and frequent enough to alter the terms or conditions of an employee’s workplace.
A victim must show both that he or she was offended by the conduct and that a theoretically reasonable person in the same situation would react the same way. Isolated sexual events are normally not enough to prove a claim of this type. The misconduct must form a pattern of misbehavior over the course of time.
2. When a manager asks for sexual favors in exchange for workplace benefits, a case of what’s called quid pro quo harassment may be stated. This term translates roughly to "something for something."
The most recognizable example of it may be the case filed by Paula Jones against then President Bill Clinton, where Jones, an employee of the state of Arkansas, claimed Gov. Clinton exposed himself and requested sex. Cases of quid pro quo harassment can be stated by employees who either accept the sexual entreaty or refuse it and suffer some negative workplace consequence.
Both types of harassment must be proved on their own facts, with each case turning on individual circumstances that include the specific conduct at issue, its context and interactions with the victim. Claims can be brought by men or women, and alleged harassers can be either the opposite sex or the same gender as the accuser.
In Massachusetts, all suits for sexual harassment must start at the commission against discrimination and may later move to a state court. Depending on venue, damage possibilities vary to some extent. In all cases, a winning claimant can recover lost wages, emotional distress damages and legal fees.
Jack K. Merrill is a Framingham employment lawyer and trial attorney at Mayer, Antonellis, Jachowicz & Galvani LLP. For answers to employment law questions, e-mail him at jmerrill@hkwg.com.
Much of the time, the conduct is subtle, perhaps unnoticed by other employees.
Often, it’s ignored by those it discomfits or offends, largely because walking away is easier and a safer career move. Despite this, sexual behaviors on the job are improper in just about all circumstances and illegal in many of them. Employees in Massachusetts have the right to insist that they stop, and employers have the duty to ensure that they do.
When business fails in this duty, the law of sexual harassment can come into play. This normally happens when management doesn’t implement a strong anti-harassment policy or explain what’s allowed in the workplace and what isn’t.
To be sure, telling the difference can be challenging. Sexual harassment claims require a pattern of misconduct that affects a victim’s ability to do his or her job, and there is no clear line demarking when conduct becomes illegal.
The key to beating claims is avoiding them in the first place, since litigating sexual harassment issues is a time-consuming, costly endeavor that often leaves both parties wondering who won and who lost.
Both for this reason and because sexual misconduct at work is offensive and inappropriate, Massachusetts law is geared toward stopping it before it becomes a legal problem.
Employers of six or more workers must have written anti-harassment policies that generally define inappropriate conduct, provide a complaint and investigative procedure and inform employees they can complain to the state’s commission against discrimination if they see fit. The law also suggests but doesn’t require that management employees be trained on sexual harassment so they can act as watchdogs against misconduct.
Companies that don’t implement anti-harassment policies in good faith and do all they can to eliminate misconduct at work can face steep penalties from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), which has the power to both award damages to injured workers and to order employers to undertake expensive training and other steps to reduce the risk of future sexual misconduct.
For employer and employee alike, then, a company’s anti-harassment policy should be seen as a safety net against lawsuits that neither side should be a hurry to engage in. Employers should promote their policies and encourage internal complaints so that they can identify misconduct early on and put a stop to it.
Employees should see the policy as a tool they can turn to for help when, for example, their requests that sexual behaviors stop are not heeded. When workers are afraid to complain under an anti-harassment policy, problems fester and lawsuits can result.
So what is sexual harassment? The law defines two distinct types.
1. Hostile work environment sexual harassment is the more common type. It occurs when sexual behavior is unwelcome and frequent enough to alter the terms or conditions of an employee’s workplace.
A victim must show both that he or she was offended by the conduct and that a theoretically reasonable person in the same situation would react the same way. Isolated sexual events are normally not enough to prove a claim of this type. The misconduct must form a pattern of misbehavior over the course of time.
2. When a manager asks for sexual favors in exchange for workplace benefits, a case of what’s called quid pro quo harassment may be stated. This term translates roughly to "something for something."
The most recognizable example of it may be the case filed by Paula Jones against then President Bill Clinton, where Jones, an employee of the state of Arkansas, claimed Gov. Clinton exposed himself and requested sex. Cases of quid pro quo harassment can be stated by employees who either accept the sexual entreaty or refuse it and suffer some negative workplace consequence.
Both types of harassment must be proved on their own facts, with each case turning on individual circumstances that include the specific conduct at issue, its context and interactions with the victim. Claims can be brought by men or women, and alleged harassers can be either the opposite sex or the same gender as the accuser.
In Massachusetts, all suits for sexual harassment must start at the commission against discrimination and may later move to a state court. Depending on venue, damage possibilities vary to some extent. In all cases, a winning claimant can recover lost wages, emotional distress damages and legal fees.
[as]Jack K. Merrill is a Framingham employment lawyer and trial attorney at Mayer, Antonellis, Jachowicz & Galvani LLP. For answers to employment law questions, e-mail him at jmerrill@hkwg.com.[xs]
