Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Sexual harassment in the workplace in US labor law has been considered a form of discrimination on the basis of sex in the United States since the mid-1970s. [1] [2] There are two forms of sexual harassment recognized by United States law: quid pro quo sexual harassment (requiring an employee to tolerate sexual harassment to keep their job, receive a tangible benefit, or avoid punishment) and ...
Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), is a US labor law case, where the United States Supreme Court, in a 9–0 decision, recognized sexual harassment as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was the first of its kind to reach the Supreme Court and would redefine sexual harassment in the workplace.
In the late 1990s, some legal scholars began to advocate for more explicitly including gender harassment in sexual harassment law, but this was a minority view. [22] Existing sexual harassment law frequently does cover some instances of gender harassment, but it is often viewed as less severe than other types of sexual harassment in a legal ...
The case was about retaliation, not sexual harassment, so Hubbard had to prove there was a causal relationship between Mike’s whistleblowing and HSBC’s actions against him. While several of the most sordid details were revealed—Eileen offering Jill to clients and executives, the breast-flashing incident—they were not the focus of the trial.
A common misconception about workplace harassment is that workplace harassment is simply sexual harassment in the context of a workplace. [10] While sexual harassment is a form of workplace harassment, the United States Department of Labor defines workplace harassment as being more than just sexual harassment. [10] "It may entail quid pro quo ...
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services set the precedent for analyzing same-sex harassment and sexual harassment without motivation of "sexual desire" by stating that any discrimination based on sex is actionable if it places the victim in an objectively-disadvantageous working condition, regardless of the gender of the victim or the harasser.
The "definition of sexual misconduct is far from clear" and it is a "lay term, sometimes used in institutional policies or by professional bodies", to deal with cases marked by power imbalance, coercion, and predatory behaviour." [5] Educator sexual misconduct is discussed in detail in this article.
Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover ...