sexual harassment

Hudson County Prosecutors Office Employees to Be Disciplined for Inappropriate Social Media Posts

September 18, 2021 | Smith Eibeler LLC

Employees within the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office could face serious disciplinary action as a result of a workplace complaint investigation conducted by an outside law firm in response to unlawful employee conduct. The investigation was prompted by a series of offensive social media posts shared by Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office employees, posted on Facebook and within their internal workplace messaging app, “Slack”.

Under New Jersey law, employers must maintain an effective policy against unlawful harassment and discrimination at the workplace. With an effective anti-harassment policy in place, harassment investigations may shield an employer from hostile work environment claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination is one of the nation’s strongest legal protections for employee civil rights against discrimination and threats of harassment, including sexual harassment. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination requires employers to investigate all complaints of harassment and discrimination promptly, thoroughly and completely.

Serious hostile work environment concerns emerged at the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office after racist jokes’ and offensive social media comments raised tensions amongst assistant prosecutors. In March 2021, the initial internal investigation began with an examination of Assistant Prosecutor Bill Specht and Agent Kelly Sisk over “offensive and sickening” posts the two allegedly made on social media and shared via Slack. Screenshots from March 2021, were shared of Specht’s conversations within the workplace Slack chatroom, writing that “Infoshare identifies as Mexican. It sleeps when the sun is hottest.” Specht additionally shared a number of racially offensive Facebook posts, following the police killing of George Floyd and the shooting of Jacob Blake. These posts alluded to the exoneration of law enforcement officials in officer-involved shootings, an especially controversial subject for someone in his position.

Hollywood Establishes a Commission to Address Problems of Systemic Sexual Harassment

January 29, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

In recent years, allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct have abounded throughout the United States, and, particularly, in the Hollywood spotlight. In response to continuing and increasing numbers of allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct in the entertainment industry, the Hollywood Commission on Eliminating Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality formed in 2017. The organization’s mission is “leading the entertainment industry to a strong and equitable future by defining and implementing best practices that eliminate sexual harassment and bias for all workers, especially marginalized communities, and by actively promoting a culture of accountability, respect and equality.”

The Commission is founded and chaired by Anita Hill, a law professor who became an icon for the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements before they existed in 1991, when she accused nominated Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. While Hill did not publicly oppose his nomination, a confidential FBI interview with Hill was leaked to the press, prompting Senate hearings on Justice Thomas’ nomination to be reopened. Hill testified that Thomas, her supervisor at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), had sexually harassed her. In light of Thomas’ denial of her allegations, Hill agreed to take a polygraph test – the results were consistent with her testimony. In Thomas’ 2007 autobiography, My Grandfather’s Son, Thomas refers to Hill as his “most traitorous adversary”. Hill’s work advocating for women in the workplace has continued, as she now leads the charge against sexual harassment in the entertainment industry.

Hill stated, “The Me-Too movement sent shockwaves throughout the Hollywood community. We all know that there is work to be done to create safe and respectful workplaces in the industry. Our next step is to understand the state of the industry today, so that we can implement effective solutions.” Recently, the Commission joined with the Ethics & Compliance Initiative, a non-profit research organization focused on empowering organizations to build and sustain high-quality ethics and compliance programs and cultures of integrity, to develop a survey.

New Jersey’s Strict Confidentiality Directive Continues to Silence Victims of Sexual Harassment

April 22, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

New Jersey’s State Policy Prohibiting Discrimination in the Workplace is considered amongst many New Jersey employment lawyers as being one of the least protective of employee rights in the entire country. Unfortunately, the newest revisions proposed by the Civil Service Commission do not provide any meaningful improvement for State employees governed under the State’s anti-harassment policy, and particularly with respect to how it conducts investigations of claims of sexual harassment. In fact, when it comes to New Jersey’s controversial “strict confidentiality directive” policy, the proposed changes make the New Jersey’s anti-harassment policy even worse for victims of sexual harassment and discrimination.

Much has been written over the past week regarding the Civil Service Commission’s attempts to strengthen the strict confidentiality directive. While the Civil Service Commission’s proposed revisions could worsen the penalties for breach, the current version of the strict confidentiality directive in effect continues to require incidents of sexual harassment from the public. What many of the news reports seem to have missed is the devastating impact of the current strict confidentiality policy has and continues to have on silencing victims of sexual harassment.

The current strict confidentiality directive in place expressly threatens state employees with discipline up to and including termination if the state employee exercises his or her constitutionally protected right to speak out about allegations of harassment within the state workplace. A state employee who makes a complaint of harassment or discrimination, or is requested to participate in a discrimination or harassment investigation, is required under current state regulations and practice to keep all aspects of the investigation confidential. This means, for example, that if a state employee is the victim of sexual assault or harassment at her state job and she complains about it to the State’s EEO/AA office, she is forbidden under current regulations and practice to tell a lawyer, a co-worker or even her spouse anything about what happened. The strict confidential directive remains in place and every state employee must abide by it or be subject to discipline. N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(j), states:

Opening the Courthouse Doors: Employers Move Away from Arbitration

December 3, 2018 | Smith Eibeler LLC

An inspiring development is taking place for victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. Employees who are subjected to sexual harassment at work have faced an increasingly prevalent barrier to getting justice: mandatory arbitration. This has meant that for many employment disputes, the courthouse doors have been closed, requiring employees to instead seek relief through arbitration. Earlier this month, Facebook announced that they will be amending their arbitration agreements to no longer require mandatory arbitration for claims of sexual harassment in the workplace. This move comes on the heels of similar announcements earlier this year by Google, Lyft, and Uber, following a wave of protests by employees who felt that the system of requiring mandatory arbitration of all employment disputes contributed to a pervasive culture of sexual harassment.

Arbitration agreements were disfavored historically. Beginning in England in the 17th century, our legal tradition held that arbitration agreements were freely revocable, up to the point where a dispute was actually subjected to arbitration. This remained the controlling law in the United States up until 1925, when Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act, signaling a change in how disputes would be resolved going forward. This has gradually led to an increase, and in recent years an explosion, in the prominence that arbitration has played.

Today, it has become the norm for employers to require all new hires to sign arbitration agreements at the start of their employment that bar the employees from suing the employer for any claims arising out of their employment. A 2017 survey of 1,500 employers conducted by the Economic Policy Institute produced some startling statistics showing just how widespread arbitration has become in the workplace. According to the survey, among companies with 1,000 or more employees, 65% have mandatory arbitration provisions. Looking at the employee side, among private-sector non-union employees, 56% are subject to mandatory arbitration. Extrapolated out, that covers over 60 million American workers.

Court Affirms Jury Verdict Against Costco for Customer Sexual Harassment Toward Employee

September 18, 2018 | Smith Eibeler LLC

A federal Court of Appeals has affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a former Costco employee in connection with her claim of a hostile work environment based upon sexual harassment by a customer. This case reaffirms that an employer can be held legally responsible for allowing a hostile work environment created by non-employees if the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to render the employee’s work environment hostile.

In the matter of EEOC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., the EEOC sued on behalf of a former Costco employee, Dawn Suppo. Ms. Suppo was initially employed as a seasonal, part-time employee in 2009 and then became a regular, part-time employee in May, 2010. Around the time she became a regular employee, a customer named Thad Thompson began approaching Ms. Suppo and asking her personal questions that her uncomfortable. Initially, Ms. Suppo did not report the interactions to her supervisor or other management. However, in or about July/August, 2010, the conduct did not stop and Ms. Suppo informed her supervisor of Mr. Thompson’s harassing conduct and the fact that she was scared of him. Her supervisor instructed her to notify him if she sees Mr. Thompson again.

Soon thereafter, Ms. Suppo noticed Mr. Thompson in the store again watching her through the store aisles. Ms. Suppo reported to her supervisor that Mr. Thompson was back in the store stalking her and that she was scared of him. As a result, Ms. Suppo’s supervisor and other management brought Mr. Thompson into the warehouse office and instructed him to leave Ms. Suppo alone. Mr. Thompson responded with anger and loudly yelled that it is a “free country” and that he had “freedom of speech.” Ms. Suppo was extremely scared at this point and decided to call the police and file a report. Later that day, the one of the Costco Assistant Managers yelled at Ms. Suppo for calling the police and instructed her to be nice to Mr. Thompson.

Third Circuit Decision Cites to #MeToo Movement in Holding that Failure to Report Supervisor’s Sexual Harassment is Not Per Se Unreasonable

July 7, 2018 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The Third Circuit has reversed a trial court’s decision that dismissed a sexual harassment lawsuit because the plaintiff employee never complained directly to her employer. The decision is causing employment attorneys across the country to question the continued viability of the Faragher-Ellerth defense, which permits employers to avoid liability for sexual harassment where an employee fails to make a formal complaint about sexual harassment directly to the employer.

In the case of Sheri Minarsky v. Susquehanna County and Thomas Yadlosky, Jr., the employee began her employment as a part-time secretary with the Susquehanna County Department of Veterans Affairs from September, 2009. The employee claimed that she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor throughout her employment starting from the very beginning. The sexual harassment included her supervisor attempting to kiss her on the lips, massaging her shoulders while she was at her computer and approaching her from behind and pulling her against him. The employee also claimed that the supervisor would often question her whereabouts during her lunch hour and would also call her at home under the pretense of a work-related inquiry only to then ask personal questions unrelated to work. The supervisor also sent sexually explicit messages through email to the employee.

While the employee never complained to her employer about her claims of sexual harassment in fear of retaliation, the employer was aware of the supervisor’s inappropriate behavior toward other women, which resulted in two verbal reprimands. Other employees also raised concerns that the supervisor would attempt to kiss employees under the mistletoe during Christmas time.