Recognizing and Understanding the Risks of Prohibited Discrimination - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 22
About This Presentation
Title:

Recognizing and Understanding the Risks of Prohibited Discrimination

Description:

Office of University Counsel. 2. Prohibited ... Quid Pro Quo Harassment ... In contrast, in quid pro quo cases, a single incident will constitute harassment ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:63
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 23
Provided by: jennifere8
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Recognizing and Understanding the Risks of Prohibited Discrimination


1
Recognizing and Understanding the Risks of
Prohibited Discrimination Harassment
  • A Few Basics You Need to Know
  • Prepared by
  • Leanne Shank
  • Jennifer Kirkland
  • Office of University Counsel

2
Prohibited Discrimination and Harassment What
Is It?
  • Unwelcome conduct based on a protected category
    (under law or WL policy) that is a term or
    condition of employment or participation in
    education programs.

3
 Unwelcome
  • To be "unwelcome" the conduct must not be
    solicited or invited, and the complainant must
    have regarded the conduct as undesirable or
    offensive.
  • Voluntary participation/lack of coercion is not
    dispositive neither is a contemporaneous
    complaint or protest necessary.

4
 What Categories Are Protected by Law or WL
Policy?
  • Federal and Virginia law prohibit harassment or
    other discrimination on the basis of any of the
    following categories sex, race, national or
    ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, and
    veterans status.
  • Washington and Lee University has gone beyond the
    legally mandated protected categories to include
    sexual orientation in its prohibited
    discrimination and harassment policy.

5
What Type of Conduct is Sex-Based Conduct?
  • Conduct of a sexual nature (sexual advances,
    request for sexual favors, and other visual,
    verbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature)
    OR
  • Conduct directed toward an individual because of
    that individual's sex (e.g., gender
    humiliation). 

6
What about Same-Sex Conduct?
  • Harassing conduct can be, but need not be,
    motivated by sexual desire to support an
    inference of discrimination "on the basis of
    sex.
  • E.g., female victim being harassed in such
    sex-specific and derogatory terms by another
    woman to make it clear that the harasser had a
    general hostility to women in the workplace.
  • Same-sex cases require careful consideration of
    the social context in which the behavior
    occurred.

7
Conduct That Could Be Sexual Harassment If
Unwelcome
  • Lewd remarks or whistlesPersistent physical
    contact/romantic pursuitHumor or insult of a
    sexual natureObscene messages and sexual
    discussionsRating sexual attributes and
    attractivenessSexually suggestive
    gesturesSexual misuse or abuse of powerSubtle
    or overt pressure for sexual favorsDeliberate
    gender humiliation or intimidationStalkingSexual
    assault

8
Term or Condition of Employment or Education
  • In this first step of a liability analysis,
    whether protected discrimination or harassment
    took place, two forms of judicially recognized
    harassment are relevant.

9
Quid Pro Quo Harassment
  • Involves submission to the unwelcome conduct as
    an expressed or implied condition for receiving
    an academic or employment benefit or evidence
    that refusal to submit to such unwelcome conduct
    resulted in a tangible academic or employment
    detriment (not simply threat of detriment).
  • E.g., impact on grades or graduation, hiring,
    firing, promotion, compensation, or reassignment
    to a substantially different, inferior position.
  • Primarily sexual harassment cases.

10
Hostile Environment Harassment
  • Situation presented when unwelcome conduct
    unreasonably interferes with an individual's
    academic or work performance or creates an
    intimidating or hostile academic or work
    environment, even without tangible or economic
    consequences.
  • The critical inquiry in a hostile environment
    case is whether the conduct was sufficiently
    "severe or pervasive" to create an abusive
    academic or work environment. 

11
 Look at the Totality of Circumstances
  • Relevant Factors
  • Age and relationship of parties Location of
    conduct Frequency/severity/duration of
    conduct Nature and context of incident(s) Verbal
    or physical threats involved Trivial or
    patently offensive comments? Number of
    individuals involved Specific impact on
    work/education Relationship of subject matter to
    course (if classroom conduct)

12
 Severe and Pervasive Standard
  • Unless conduct is egregious, a single or isolated
    incident of offensive conduct generally does not
    create a hostile environment. Generally requires
    a pattern of offensive conduct. Federal law does
    not attempt to purge the work or academic
    environment of all offensive language or conduct.
  • In contrast, in quid pro quo cases, a single
    incident will constitute harassment if it is
    linked to the granting or denial of academic or
    employment benefits. 

13
  Two-Part Viewpoint Test
  • Consider the perspective of the complainant and
    the perspective of a reasonable person. Would a
    reasonable person in the complainant's position
    have felt harassed and did the complainant feel
    harassed?
  • Psychological injury not required.

14
 Some Harassment Myths
  • Harassment requires a bad intent on the part of
    the harasser.
  • If parties have been involved consensually,
    subsequent conduct cannot be considered sexual
    harassment.
  • Liability is limited to conduct by supervisors
    and managers, not visitor or student-to-student
    harassment, because the University cannot control
    those relationships.

15
How Serious is the Legal Risk?
  • Potential for significant damages to the
    University under civil rights laws for employee
    or student discrimination and harassment,
    including compensatory and punitive damages.
    Potential for numerous state law damages claims,
    as well, against university and individual
    harasser.
  • As CAIR resources and designated officers, you
    can act to minimize this risk to the University.

16
 When Is University Liable for
Discrimination/Harassment?
  • Harassment of a student by another student
    University liable if officials actually knew of
    severe and pervasive harassment but were
    deliberately indifferent to it.
  • Precisely what type of official must have
    knowledge in order to trigger liability is in
    question. Knowledge by faculty, staff, or
    administrators with significant responsibility
    for student affairs, or by CAIR resources or
    designated officers, likely would trigger
    liability if deliberately indifferent. 

17
  • Harassment of a student by faculty or other
    university employee University liable if an
    official with authority to address and correct
    the alleged harassment actually knew of the
    situation, failed to respond to it, and showed
    deliberate indifference.
  • At WL, this certainly would include all
    designated officers, and other high-level
    administrators and department heads. It could
    also include CAIR resources and student activity
    supervisors and advisors.  

18
  • Harassment of an employee by a co-worker,
    student, or other third party University liable
    if officials knew or should have known of the
    harassment and did not take prompt and reasonable
    action to end it.

19
  • Harassment of an employee (including student
    workers) by a supervisor University absolutely
    liable if harassing supervisor takes tangible
    employment action against harassed employee.
  • University will be liable even without knowledge
    or a tangible employment action unless it can
    show that (1) University used reasonable care to
    prevent and promptly correct the harassment and
    (2) employee did not act reasonably to prevent
    harassment and to seek help through Universitys
    preventive and remedial policy and
    procedures.  

20
Can Harasser be Individually Liable?
  • Even though the federal courts have ruled that
    individual harassers are not individually liable
    for their harassment under the relevant federal
    laws, these individuals remain subject to
    potential individual liability under state law
    (e.g., assault, battery, infliction of emotional
    distress, etc.) in each of the above scenarios. 

21
  Some Dos
  • Follow the policy and procedures.
  • Encourage reporting of perceived harassment! If
    a complainant decides not to pursue a complaint,
    document acknowledgement that complainant was
    advised of procedures available.
  • Take all complaints seriously and handle
    promptly.
  • Make a careful and thorough record, in
    consultation with Head CAIR and University
    Counsel.
  • Communicate on a limited need-to-know basis.
  • Follow up to be sure harassment has stopped.

22
 Some Donts
  • Don't adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
  • Dont take a "boys will be boys" or its just
    harmless teasing attitude.
  • Don't suggest complainants just ignore it.
  • Dont delay once aware of a problem.
  • Dont make quick judgments or act biased.
  • Dont breach appropriate confidentiality.
  • Dont hesitate to assess credibility.
  • Dont assume it couldnt happen at WL. 
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com