Sexual Harassment of Minors
Here is an article I found at the EEOC's website about a company that owns and operates McDonald's franchises in Arizona and California who recently settled a sexual harassment lawsuit for over half a million dollars with 8 young female employees. Particularly shocking was the fact that several of the young women were only 14 years old at the time and that the male supervisor guilty of the harassment was a repeat offender. In fact, the company knew of the harassment and failed to do anything to protect the workers. In addition to the monetary settlement the EEOC is ordering the company to educate current and future employees on sexual harassment in the workplace.
It surprised me that an extremely large franchise such as McDonald's would not already have some sort of sexual harassment education policy in place. I understand that the practical implications of this may be difficult, but do you think it would be a good idea for the government and the EEOC to make such education policies mandatory? I was also wondering (maybe Professor Prenkert can help me out on this one) if the outcomes/punishments are any different in situations where the plaintiffs are under 18?
It surprised me that an extremely large franchise such as McDonald's would not already have some sort of sexual harassment education policy in place. I understand that the practical implications of this may be difficult, but do you think it would be a good idea for the government and the EEOC to make such education policies mandatory? I was also wondering (maybe Professor Prenkert can help me out on this one) if the outcomes/punishments are any different in situations where the plaintiffs are under 18?
posted by Justin B at
11:13 PM
1 Comments:
Education programs are not mandatory, but the rules regarding employer liability for harassment incentivize such training. The more an employer shows a serious effort to head off sexual harassment issues and make sure its employees are aware of their rights and are instructed about how to avoid harassment, the more likely the employer is to be able to prove the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court just denied a motion for a writ of certiorari, which would have allowed it to answer a question related to Justin's inquiry regarding whether cases involving minors are treated differently. In Doe v. Oberweiss Dairy, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the "unwelcomeness" prong of a hostile environment sexual harassment case should be presumed when the victim is 16 years old. Because the 16-year-old could not consent to sex under the law (i.e., sexual activity with her would be statutory rape), the court need not consider whether her behavior had welcomed the alleged harasser's sexual behavior. Read more about the case here.
So, some courts find the youth of the victim to be relevant to issues of sexual harassment. On the other hand, there's nothing in the statute or cases regarding remedies that would automatically lead to a greater recovery for sexual harassment on a minor. Nevertheless, I imagine jurors are all the more horrified by such behavior when it involves children and wouldn't be surprised if they were more likely to increase the damages award as a result.
That's just my gut reaction though. I've never seen a study about it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home