Resumo de Sexual-harassment Definition Broadened

Sexual-Harassment Definition Broadened
A California Supreme Court ruling that expanded the meaning of sexual harassment in the workplace will be ?ground-breaking? as a catalyst for future lawsuits, according to one attorney.
The court ruled that a hostile work environment can be created if a manager engages in sexual affairs with subordinates ? causing harassment to employees who are not connected romantically with their superior.
?As a consequence of this case, the risk that has long accompanied such behavior, i.e. a claim of retaliation by the paramour who is treated poorly, now expands to include claims of favoritism by the co-workers of a paramour who is treated well,? says Barry Kellman, employment partner in the Los Angeles-based law firm Greenberg Glusker.
The ruling settled one of the issues raised in the sexual-harassment suit, Miller vs. Department of Corrections. Still-outstanding issues will be considered by an appellate court before the case goes to trial.
The lawsuit was brought by two former female employees at the Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla, Calif., who claimed the prison?s warden, Lewis Kuykendall, showed favoritism toward other female employees with whom he was sexually involved.
Phil Horowitz, of the California Employment Lawyers Association, which submitted a brief to the court in support of the women, characterized the ruling as ?ground-breaking.?
?It?s the first major decision saying women can sue if they are treated worse because they?re not the paramour of the supervisor,? Horowitz said in a statement. ?It?s going to protect a lot of women in California from abuse and, hopefully, start a trend rolling in other jurisdictions.?
The suit was originally filed in 1999 by Edna Miller, a former guard at the prison, and record manager Frances Mackey, both corrections employees since the 1970s.
Upon being transferred to Valley State Prison in the mid 1990s, both said they soon learned Kuykendall was having affairs with correctional counselor Cagie Brown and at least two other subordinates; granting unfair benefits to those women, in some cases at the expense of their co-workers.
In one instance, the suit claims, Miller competed with Brown for a promotion, which Brown received despite Miller?s superior rank, more advanced education and higher level of experience.
Miller and Mackey, who has since died, presented evidence to the lower courts that the preferential treatment Kuykendall afforded his girlfriends impeded their career progress and created a hostile work environment. Both women claimed they suffered retaliation when they complained about the unfair conduct.
Two lower courts ruled against the women, saying the warden?s alleged conduct ? while unfair ? was not discriminatory, as the two women were not subjected to sexual advances, were not treated in a sexually demeaning fashion and were not denied promotions or raises because of their gender.
In overturning those decisions, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote that although one instance of such nepotism would not ordinarily amount to sexual harassment, ?when such sexual favoritism in a workplace is sufficiently widespread ? in which the demeaning message is conveyed to female employees that they are viewed as ?sexual playthings? or that the way required for women to get ahead in the workplace is by engaging in sexual conduct,? such behavior can and does constitute harassment.?

Resumos Relacionados