Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Anti-Harassment Policy and Training: More Important Than Ever

By Marc R. Engel
August 25, 2003

A recent decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey serves as a powerful reminder to employers that in order to attempt to insulate themselves from liability for harassment claims, an anti-harassment policy must be more than the 'mere words' contained therein. Rather, the anti-harassment policy must be effective, and the effectiveness of the policy is measured, among other things, by whether the policy is: 1) properly communicated to employees through meaningful anti-harassment training; and 2) properly monitored, applied and enforced.

What the Supreme Court Says

Most employers are aware that the responsibility for eliminating sexual harassment in the workplace resides with them. The Supreme Court has made this clear ' and workplace training is an important component in preventing sexual harassment claims. In 1998, the Supreme Court issued two decisions that dramatically impacted employers' ability to protect themselves from sexual harassment-related lawsuits. In Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, the Supreme Court held that an employer can be liable, even though it is not negligent or otherwise at fault, for a hostile work environment created by a supervisor. An employer may defend such a lawsuit, provided that there has been no tangible adverse employment action taken against the employee, by establishing that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment, and that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to otherwise avoid harm. Cases that have been decided since these Supreme Court rulings have emphasized the importance of effectively communicating the company's sexual harassment policy to employees; this is routinely done through sexual harassment training.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?