The case of gross misbehavior going on at a West Tennessee auto parts store contained some unusual facts. All of the sides agreed that the conduct of the alleged harasser, who was also the store manager, was “repulsive.” Everyone agreed “that he got what he deserved when” the employer fired him shortly after its investigation. What wasn’t clear was whether the store manager held a role within the employer’s organization with enough power such that the employer could be liable for his harassing conduct. Ultimately, the courts decided that the employer was not liable in this case because of the limited authority the store manager actually held.
Published on:
When is a Worker a ‘Co-Worker’ and When is He a ‘Supervisor’ in Terms of a Sexual Harassment Case
Almost 23 years ago, two Hollywood A-list actors, Michael Douglas and Demi Moore, starred in a dramatic film called “Disclosure.” The issue of workplace sexual harassment –- specifically, quid pro quo harassment –- was a key plot point in the film. In the movie, the female boss (Moore’s character) engaged in quid pro quo harassment of her male subordinate employee (Douglas’ character).
A considerable variety of employment law cases, especially when the employee’s claims relate to discrimination or retaliation, can succeed or fail based upon which side (employee or employer) presents a stronger case about whether the employer’s adverse action was legitimate or merely a pretext for engaging in illegal conduct. Many times, this may boil down to other employees working for the same employer and whether or not they qualify as “similarly situated” in relation to the employee who has sued. 
In a Title VII discrimination case, there are several hurdles in front of a plaintiff. The law requires that the employee show that she suffered discrimination and that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons offered by the employer were really just pretexts for discrimination. In 
An old fable tells the story of a cat and a monkey. The monkey convinces the cat to fetch some chestnuts from the embers of a recently extinguished fire. The cat gets the nuts and gives them to the monkey, burning its paw in the process. A maid interrupts their activity, resulting in the cat getting nothing but a burned paw for its troubles. This fable is the origin of a phrase – “cat’s paw” – that means being the tool of another person. In employment law, the “cat’s paw” theory of liability is something that can hold an employer liable even when the employer has been duped by one of its supervisory or managerial employees.
A major national staffing services company could end up in legal hot water regarding the way it handled its time-keeping practices for some of its remote workers. A class of “virtual call center” employees launched a collective action accusing the company of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay them for all of the time they worked. In an important recent step in the case, the federal district court for the 
A nursing facility’s activities director got good news from the 
Late last summer, the 
In an employee’s 
While much has been reported in the news recently in terms of bathrooms and civil rights, an Ohio public health agency employee’s Title VII lawsuit was a very different kind of bathroom case. The employee, a supervisory-level environmental health and sanitation worker, alleged that she suffered from workplace retaliation after informing office supervisors about an IT worker’s alleged misuse of a video camera. The