Read this article to see why....
Supreme Court Redefines Supervisor in Discrimination Case
In June, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that
made it harder for workers to prove they had been a victim to employment
discrimination. The first ruling narrows the definition of what
classifies a supervisor, thus leaving plaintiffs with
a different burden of proof. In Vance vs. Ball State University, Maetta
Vance – an African American worker, accused her supervisor Saundra
Davis –who is white and described as a catering specialist, of racial
harassment claiming that Davis had glared at her,
slammed pots and pans, and blocked her on an elevator. However, both
sides agreed that Ms. Davis did not have the authority to hire or fire
employees.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. rejected the EEOC’s
definition of a supervisor and ruled that “being a supervisor should be
limited to someone authorized to take ‘tangible employment actions’ like
hiring, firing, promoting, demoting, or reassigning
employees to significantly different responsibilities,” according to
the New York Times. This ruling specifies that an employer could not be
held liable in a co-worker to co-worker claim unless it can be proven
that the employer failed to exercise reasonable
care to prevent or correct any harassing behavior.
Employers should be aware of this ruling that
clearly defines the difference between co-workers and supervisors. The
employer’s liability is greatly increased if a supervisor is accused of
employee harassment or discrimination. Therefore,
companies should be aware of the EEOC and OFCCP compliance regulations
that they are required to adhere to.
Innovative Leadership can help your company in various ways! Contact us to find out how http://www.innovativeleadershipdv.com
No comments:
Post a Comment