Why you get Sexual Harassment Training: The Stupid Supreme "Court" ruling Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998)

 The so-called Supreme "Court" of the United States created an entire industry of consultants and lawyers specializing in Sexual Harassment "law" because there is no real law.  They kept things undefined and subjective for the purpose of lining the pockets of scam artists and dishonest attorneys looking for cash in on the tons of money available from stupid corporate leaders scared to death of "getting sued."

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of employer liability in cases of sexual harassment. The case involved a female lifeguard, Beth Ann Faragher, who alleged that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment and supervisor harassment by two of her male supervisors.


The court examined whether the City of Boca Raton could be held vicariously liable for the supervisors' actions. The key question was whether the supervisors' conduct fell within the scope of their employment, making the employer responsible for their actions.


The court affirmed that employers can be held vicariously liable for hostile work environment sexual harassment by supervisors under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, it introduced the "Ellerth/Faragher defense," which allowed employers to escape liability if they could demonstrate two essential elements:


1. The employer must have exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior. This requires implementing clear policies and procedures and providing training to employees on harassment prevention.


2. The employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer. If an employer has provided mechanisms for reporting and addressing sexual harassment, but the victim did not use them, the employer may avoid liability.


The court emphasized that this defense is not available if the harassment resulted in a tangible employment action, such as demotion, termination, or exclusion from benefits. In such cases, the employer would still be held liable for the harassment regardless of the preventive measures in place or the victim's response.


Faragher v. City of Boca Raton clarified the standards of employer liability in cases of supervisor sexual harassment. It highlighted the importance of implementing effective policies and procedures to prevent and address harassment and encouraging employees to utilize these resources. This case helped establish the framework for employer responsibility in combating sexual harassment in the workplace.


"Vicariously liable" refers to a situation where someone is held legally responsible for the actions of another person. In the context of employment law, it means that an employer can be held liable for the discriminatory or harmful actions of its employees that occur within the scope of employment.


When an employee commits an act that results in harm to another person, such as sexual harassment, the employer may be deemed responsible for the employee's actions. This legal principle exists to ensure that victims of wrongdoing are able to seek compensation from a party that has more resources and ability to provide redress, rather than solely relying on the individual wrongdoer.


In the case of Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, the City of Boca Raton could be held vicariously liable if it was determined that the two male supervisors' actions constituted sexual harassment and occurred within the scope of their employment. This means that even though the supervisors committed the harassment, the employer can be held responsible for their actions because they were acting as agents of the employer while performing their job duties.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Common Law versus Civil Law

Common Law and Civil Law are two different legal systems with distinct origins and features.   Common Law is a legal system primarily based on court decisions and judicial precedent rather than codified law. It emphasizes the importance of case law and relies on a hierarchy of courts to interpret and apply the law. Common Law systems originated in England and were later adopted by countries that were once part of the British Empire, including the United States, Canada, Australia, and several others. In contrast, Civil Law is a legal system based on a codified set of laws that are created and updated by legislators. The legal rules and principles are primarily found in a comprehensive written legal code, which forms the basis for judicial decision-making. Civil Law systems originated in ancient Rome and have subsequently been adopted by many countries across the globe, including most of Europe, Latin America, and parts of Africa and Asia. One major difference between Common Law...
Read more

Stare Decisis: The Importance of Precedent in Common Law Systems

Introduction: Stare decisis, which translates to "to stand by things decided," is a principle that forms the foundation of the common law legal system. It ensures predictability, consistency, and fairness in judicial decision-making. This report aims to explore the concept of stare decisis and emphasize its importance in common law systems. The Principle of Stare Decisis: Stare decisis dictates that lower courts must follow the legal reasoning and rulings made by higher courts in similar cases. The principle holds that precedent should be binding and authoritative in subsequent cases with similar facts or issues. This creates a cascading effect that establishes a body of legal principles and ensures stability in the interpretation and application of the law. Binding and Persuasive Precedents: In common law systems, courts are hierarchically organized, with higher courts having the authority to set precedents that lower courts are bound to follow. These binding preceden...
Read more