You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Supreme Court to consider workplace harassment rules (and U.S. workers say in unison, "Rut roh,") [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-12 03:09 AM
Original message
Supreme Court to consider workplace harassment rules (and U.S. workers say in unison, "Rut roh,")
Advertisements [?]
Supreme Court to consider workplace harassment rules



By Terry Baynes

Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:41pm EST

(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in a case that could determine when a company is liable for harassment by its employees.

The case turns on the definition of a single word - "supervisor" - under a federal civil rights law that prohibits racial, religious or sexual harassment in the workplace.

Under previous Supreme Court rulings, an employer is automatically responsible if a supervisor harasses a subordinate. The employer is not liable if the harassment is between two equal coworkers, unless it was negligent in allowing the abuse.

Since those rulings, a rift has developed between federal appeals courts over exactly who is a supervisor. On one side, three circuits say supervisors are those with the power to hire, fire, demote, promote or discipline. Three other circuits have adopted a broader standard, one that also includes employees who direct and oversee a colleague's daily work.

In the current case, Maetta Vance was the sole black catering worker at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana. After filing numerous complaints with the university over racially charged incidents at work, she sued the university in federal court in 2006. She claimed that several white coworkers used racial epithets, references to the Ku Klux Klan and veiled physical threats against her.


Read more. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/23/us-usa-court-...

Another misleading headline. The SCOTUS considering who is considered a "supervisor" within the meaning of a statute is very different from the SCOTUS considering workplace harassment rules.

This kind of thing is aggravating because (1) supposedly, many people read ONLY headlines; and (2) it's misleading, whether intentionally or out of carelessness or stupidity. At the very least, it is crappy journalism-- and some people are getting paid good money to write these lousy headlines while other people are getting paid good money to ok them.
Refresh | +1 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC