Law Commons^™

Liability For Toxic Workplace Cultures, Dana Florczak

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Title VII is meant to protect employees from discrimination and has historically been a crucial tool for creating social change in the workplace. But when considering modern-day workplace discrimination wrought by “toxic workplace cultures” defined herein, Title VII’s frameworks for confronting systemic discrimination prove outdated and ineffective. This Note proposes the codification of a new theory of discrimination under Title VII targeting toxic workplace cultures, with substantive and procedural elements working in tandem to better enable plaintiffs to collectively bring actions to hold employers accountable for fostering discriminatory environments. Part I defines toxic workplace cultures and walks through case studies …

Challenges In Compensating Employees In Cryptocurrencies, Rebecca K. Webster

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

Sexual Harassment In The Workplace: A Primer, Barry S. Roberts, Richard A. Mann

Akron Law Review

This Article is a primer for attorneys to use when advising their clients on how to address sexual harassment in the workplace. We will begin by describing the scope and severity of the sexual harassment problem. Then we will examine the recently strengthened federal law governing sexual harassment in the workplace. Finally, we will suggest policies and procedures for establishing and implementing a sexual harassment policy.

Formalism And Employer Liability Under Title Vii, Samuel R. Bagenstos

Articles

Most lawyers, law professors, and judges are familiar with two standard critiques of formalism in legal reasoning. One is the unacknowledged-policymaking critique. This critique argues that formalist reasoning purports to be above judicial policymaking but instead simply hides the policy decisions offstage. The other is the false-determinacy critique. This critique observes that formalist reasoning purports to reduce decision costs in the run of cases by sorting cases into defined categories, but argues that instead of going away the difficult questions of application migrate to the choice of the category in which to place a particular case.

Should Prudential Standing Requirements Be Applied In Transferred Impact Sexual Harassment Cases? An Analysis Of Childress V. City Of Richmond, Robert J. Aalberts, Lorne H. Seidman

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Burlington Industries, Inc. V. Ellerth: “Whole-Cloth Creation” Or Manifestation Of Congressional Intent?, John Corrington

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Customizing The Reasonable-Woman Standard To Fit Emotionally And Financially Disabled Plaintiffs Is Outside The Scope Of The Civil Rights Act's Prohibition On Sex-Based Discrimination: Holly D. V. California Institute Of Technology, Amanda M. Jarratt

Golden Gate University Law Review

Tailoring the reasonable-woman standard to include select disabilities is problematic because employer liability would improperly depend upon the effect that the victim's disability had on the victim's perception, instead of on the agency relationship between the supervisor and the employer. Furthermore, these subjective standards would prevent employers from successfully invoking the reasonable care defense. Using these tailored standards would also result in discriminatory treatment under the law for women who did not qualify for one of these customized standards. Finally, customized standards would sterilize American workplaces. In support of this Comment's assertions against factoring the emotional and financial difficulties of …

Defining Employer Liability: Toward A Precise Application Of Agency Principles In Title Vii Sexual Harassment Cases, Jennifer T. Dewitt

Golden Gate University Law Review

This note discusses applicable principles and law in sexual harassment cases, including Title VII, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guidelines, agency principles, and case law that illustrate two primary approaches taken by the courts in determining the standard for employer liability. This section also discusses relevant portions of the first Supreme Court case to address sexual harassment under Title VII. Section III discusses the facts that gave rise to EIlerth's sexual harassment claims. Section IV discusses the procedural history of Ellerth's case, including the district court's decision, the decision of the Seventh Circuit panel that heard Ellerth's appeal and the en …

Their Servants’ Keepers: Examining Employer Liability For The Crimes And Bad Acts Of Employees, Monique C. Lillard

Articles

No abstract provided.

Employer Vicarious Liability For Voluntary Relationships Between Supervisors And Employees, Carrie E. Fischesser

Seattle University Law Review

It is somewhat radical to suggest that an employer should not be held vicariously liable for an employee's voluntary submission to sexual advances where the alleged harasser is a supervisor, and this approach is a marked departure from existing assumptions regarding sexual harassment. Most decisions and writings on the topic have imposed--under a traditional agency theory-- vicarious liability upon the employer for the sexually harassing conduct of its supervisors.4 Specifically, courts addressing this issue have held that “[t]here is no question that a ‘tangible employment action’ occurs when a supervisor abuses his authority to act on his employer's behalf by …

Labor And Employment Law, W. David Paxton, Gregory R. Hunt

University of Richmond Law Review

It was a relatively quiet year in the Virginia labor and employment law arena, with no real groundbreaking cases or legislative enactments. There were developments in case law and legislative changes, but these were more subtle this year than in years past, and for the most part, the courts confirmed, affirmed, or clarified the existing state of the law. This article discusses cases and legislative activity of note in the Virginia labor and employment law arena during the past year. Part II addresses recent cases considering employment agreements under Virginia law. Part III considers cases in the continually evolving area …

The First Bite Is Free: Employer Liability For Sexual Harassment, Joanna L. Grossman

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

In June, 1998, the Supreme Court issued two decisions, Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton that established new standards for employer liability for sexual harassment. Although the two cases presented different questions and factual predicates, the Court adopted a unified holding with respect to employer liability for supervisor harassment. Many commentators interpreted the new standards as a blow to employers based on the perception that employers would now be held accountable for workplace harassment without regard to their culpability.

The thesis of this article is that the conventional wisdom with respect to Faragher and …

Employer Liability For Harassment Under Title Vii: A Functional Rationale For Faragher And Ellerth, Michael C. Harper

San Diego Law Review

In two decisions concerning sexual harassment, Faragher v. City of Boca Raton' and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, The Supreme Court, on the last day of its 1997-1998 term finally articulated coherent vicarious liability rules critical for bounding the scope of the discrimination prohibitions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court did so by explaining the meaning of the inclusion of "any agent" in Title VII's definition of "employer.'" The meaning of "agent" in this definition is critical for establishing employer liability because almost all Title VII-protected employees work for corporations and other legal fictions …

Employment Law: Burlington Industries, Inc. V. Ellerth And Faragher V. City Of Boca Raton: A Clear Rule Of Deterrence Or An Invitation To Litigate? The Supreme Court Rules On Employer Liability For Supervisory Sexual Harassment, Bryan J. Pattison

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employment Law: Burlington Industries, Inc. V. Ellerth And Faragher V. City Of Boca Raton: A Clear Rule Of Deterrence Or An Invitation To Litigate? The Supreme Court Rules On Employer Liability For Supervisory Sexual Harassment, Bryan J. Pattison

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Speak No Evil: Negligent Employment Referral And The Employer's Duty To Warn (Or, How Employers Can Have Their Cake And Eat It Too), J. Bradley Buckhalter

Seattle University Law Review

This article begins by surveying the evolution of tort doctrine and the "no duty to act" rule. It then proceeds to examine current theories of employer liability in the referral and hiring context and moves on to trace the history of the negligent employment referral claim. Next, this section scrutinizes the Muroc decision and ends with a brief discussion of the future of negligent employment referral. Section III begins by exploring the implications of nondisclosure of reference information for both tort policy and tort doctrine. It then proposes an affirmative duty of disclosure as a solution by amalgamating the reasoning …

"Supervisor" Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment Claims, Liability Insurance, And The Trend Towards Negligence, Amanda D. Smith

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

A lack of settled standards for determining liability in supervisor hostile environment sexual harassment lawsuits combined with similar uncertainty in the context of employer liability insurance coverage has resulted in increased litigation in this area. This Note argues that the current predominant standard in the employer liability context, which is based on negligence principle should be rejected in favor of an apparent authority standard, which more appropriately strikes a balance between encouraging employers to identify harassing behaviors and exonerating them from liability when they do so and take appropriate remedial action. It further argues that in order to develop effective …

Using Agency Principles For Guidance In Finding Employer Liability For A Supervisor's Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment, Glen A. Staszewski

Vanderbilt Law Review

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 'Title VII," prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace.' The courts have created two categories of sexual harassment. The first, quid pro quo sexual harassment, occurs when a supervisor requires sexual consideration from an employee in exchange for job benefits. The second, hostile work environment sexual harassment, occurs when an employee is subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment that affects a term, condition, or privilege of employment. The victim must prove that the harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of hers employment and create an abusive working …

Sexual Harassment, Wrongful Discharge, And Employer Liability: The Employer's Dilemma, Sarah Needleman Kline

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Pay Acts: A Survey Of Experience Under The British And American Statutes, Robert N. Covington

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The United States Congress passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963 as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Its British parallel, the Equal Pay Act 19702, took effect at the very end of 1975 and was much amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The five year delay between enactment and enforcement provided time for employers and labor unions to adjust to the new requirements. The drafters of the British statute were aware of the United States statute, and United States cases interpreting that act were relied on quite early in United Kingdom litigation. Now that the British …

Rule 10b-5-The Equivalent Scope Of Liability Under Respondeat Superior And Section 20(A)-Imposing A Benefit Requirement On Apparent Authority, Carol M. Lynch

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Note demonstrates that the scope of employer liability for employees' rule 10b-5 violations is no broader under a proper application of respondeat superior than under section 20(a). This Note does not address the question whether respondeat superior applies under rule 10b-5, but rather how courts should apply it.

Part II examines the majority, minority, and Third Circuit decisions on employer liability. Part III discusses the traditional analysis under both respondeat superior and section 20(a) and compares the scope of liability under each one. Part III concludes that except for an employer's liability for acts that are within an employee's …

The Construction Of Indemnity Agreements Under The Federal Employers Liability Act: A Conflict Of Public Policy And Contract Law

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

The New York Employers' Liability Act, Andrew Alexander Bruce

Michigan Law Review

In the recent case of Ives v. South Buffalo Railway Company the New York Court of Appeals annulled upon constitutional grounds, the so-called Wainwright Workmen's Compensation Law which sought to impose upon employers in certain specified extra-hazardous occupations a limited liability in cases of injuries to their employees regardless of the fact as to whether the negligence of the latter might have contributed to the injury or whether the risk had been well understood and assumed. The act did not abolish or modify the common law liability of the employer in cases where contributory negligence or assumption of risk could …

Fellow Servant Doctrine In The United States Supreme Court, Albert Martin Kales

Michigan Law Review

The difficulties of the fellow servant doctrine in the United States Supreme Court have been thought to centre principally about the Ross case. The Baugh case, has been said to go far toward overruling it, and the more recent case of New England Railroad Co. v. Conroy, is now taken as overruling it in terms. Nevertheless, the writer believes that the results of all t here cases may be supported upon a common principle. This principle it is the object of this article to suggest.