These remedial measures need not be those that the employee requests or prefers, as long as they are effective. PURPOSE: This document provides guidance regarding employer liability for harassment by supervisors based on sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, or protected activity.
The general rule is that sexual harassment by a supervisor is not conduct within the scope of employment. National Super Markets Inc. The question of liability arises only after there is a determination that unlawful harassment occurred.
There we considered whether the conduct in question constituted discrimination in the terms or conditions of employment in violation of Title VII. For example, the number of sexual harassment charges has increased from 6, in fiscal year to 15, in fiscal year United States v.
Pages in this section K Your rights under the Equality Act Age discrimination Disability discrimination Gender reassignment discrimination Marriage and civil partnership discrimination Race reasons when sex discrimination does not apply to you in Burlington Religion or belief discrimination Sex discrimination Sexual orientation discrimination.
See ante, at The company eventually reinstated White to her original position and awarded her backpay, but White sued, claiming that both the reassignment and suspension without pay constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII.
Forklift SystemsU. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 3d ed. In addition, because the Court's decision in Burlington Northern means that a broader range of employer actions may constitute unlawful retaliation, it should become easier for employees to file retaliation claims.
Indirect sex discrimination can be permitted if the organisation or employer is able to show that there is a good reason for the policy. There was no triable issue of fact on the latter point, and the court noted Ellerth had not used Burlington's internal complaint procedures.
Any actual investigation must be tailored to the particular facts. Pisano, F. This means that an employee may successfully sue an employer for retaliation even if the employer's action does not actually result in an adverse employment action, such as being fired or losing wages.