Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

'An Ounce Of Prevention Is Worth A Pound Of Cure'

By April L. Boyer
September 28, 2004

In 1998, the Supreme Court reminded employers that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Today, as a result of Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), and the many cases that followed, in-house counsel are responsible for ensuring that their companies avoid harassment and, if it unfortunately occurs, what steps can be taken to preserve the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense. The Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense protects the employer from liability for harassment that does not result in a tangible employment action if the employer can demonstrate that: i) it took reasonable steps both to prevent sexual harassment and to remedy the sexually harassing conduct promptly once it was brought to the employer's attention; and ii) the harassed employee unreasonably failed to avail himself or herself of any corrective or preventive opportunities made available by the employer. Faragher at 807, Ellerth at 765. Although these companion cases dealt with sexual harassment, the holding has been expanded to all hostile work environment claims. (See, eg, Walsh v. National Computer Systems, Inc., 332 F.3d 1150 (8th Cir. 2003) (pregnancy); Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2001) (race)).

Every in-house counsel should adopt these nine steps to prevent and defend against a harassment claim.

Step One: Implement Policies

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 Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.