Courageous Conversations

Sexual Harassment Prevention: Part Two - Supreme Court broadens the definition of "retaliation"

In Part Two of our podcast (17:34) on Sexual Harassment Retaliation, Nancy Schess, Partner of Klein Zelman Rothermel and Dichter, and I continue our discussion on what specific actions organizations can take to operate safely in these new environment.

Click here to download as an MP3.

Download RetaliationPrevention.pdf (89.4K)

• Enhance your policy language
  Review your written policies and procedures and ensure that the wording on “retaliation” is comprehensive and reflects the broader definition as defined by the Supreme Court.
• Boost your training on two integrated aspects - Compliance and Prevention
  Compliance - ensure that you have an existing, ongoing Sexual Harassment Prevention training for all employees, and especially managers, that let’s them know their new role in ensuring retaliation does not occur.
  Preventative - ensure that your managers learn and practice the communication skills they need to engage in dialogue with their employees on all the appropriate issues, e.g., job expectations, performance, company policies and procedures.
• Increase your monitoring
  Human Resources will need to become more proactive in managing the outcomes and behaviors of all the involved parties of a harassment complaint. HR must build its skills and comfort in inserting themselves in the relationships - even after the complaint has been settled and corrective actions taken.

Talk to you soon, Tim.

Sexual Harassment Prevention: Part One - Supreme Court broadens the definition of "retaliation"

In Part One I speak with Nancy Schess, Labor and Employment Partner with Klein, Zelman, Rothermel & Dichter. She and I discussed the recent US Supreme Court ruling of Burlington Northern, Sante Fe Railway Co. vs. White which expanded the definition of "retaliation" in workplace sexual harassment claims. In Part Two (17:50), Nancy and I discuss the actions that organizations need to take to protect themselves in light of this new ruling. (12:40 minutes)

Click here to download as MP3

The U.S. Supreme Court, on June 22, 2006, in a unanimous ruling, said that retaliation for filing a complaint of harassment can include actions that create a "materially adverse" impact on the employee, even if it does not include a loss of a job or wages. "Materially adverse" can mean any action that would discourage a "reasonable worker" from raising an isssue of possible harassment.

One implication in this ruling is that if the resolution of a complaint means moving an employee to a different job or department, it must be a lateral move. Not to a job or position that is vastly harder or more difficult than the one he/she is leaving.

Talk to you soon, Tim.