Posts Tagged ‘Title VII’
Friday, September 27th, 2013
Mean Girls, All Grown Up, Now Workplace Bullies
They’re terrible and it’s not OK and there’s little legally to do about it
By Tessa Cheek, The Colorado Independent, Sept. 23, 2013
“This is a dirty secret, really,” said Karen McGee, a Denver women’s leadership coach who first became interested in woman on woman bullying in the workplace when members of her monthly roundtable began to raise the issue in their meetings.
“Addressing it seems to play into the stereotypes we wish to avoid,” she said. “If we talk about it openly, the fear is it will make us all look bad. And it does.”
She’s right. There’s something regressive and embarrassing about acknowledging the behavior of real-life dragon ladies who, more than a century after the dawn of the women’s movement, seem intent on sticking their stilettos in the eyes of their co-workers or subordinates. After all, there’s an unwritten code – or at least an expectation that the code exists – that women need to stick together in the office.
But the code is often broken when it comes to time for evaluations, promotions, and all manner of other ways workers can stab or get stabbed in the back.
Tags: civil rights act, colorado independant, Gary Namie, karen mcgee, tessa cheek, Title VII, Workplace Bullying Institute
Posted in Media About Bullying, Print: News, Blogs, Magazines, WBI in the News | No Archived Comments | Post A Comment (
Wednesday, June 26th, 2013
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is done for the year. Decisions have been rendered. The court gutted the civil rights movement by neutering the Voting Rights Act (Shame on them!) . The court granted LGBT proponents unprecedented rights (Yea!). Two decisions regarding employment law clearly sided with employers and once again stuck it to working men and women.
Case #1: Retaliation Changed to Suit Employer Defendants
In the Univ of Texas v. Nassar (No 12-484), SCOTUS (in a 5-4 vote on June 24, 2013) limits retaliation claims to situations in which the plaintiff can show that the the only employer motivating factor is the desire to retaliate. Justice Kennedy opined that there are two standards — lessened causation and but-for. In cases where the practice of retaliation was motivated by several factors, one of which was race, color, religion, sex or national origin, lessened causation applies. In reality, many factors do apply. The Court called these “mixed-motive” cases.
In this case, a woman supervisor at the University of Texas Medical School, Beth Levine, MD (pictured on the left), harassed Naiel Nassar, MD, a physician of Middle Eastern descent. Nassar was working at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas and was an Associate Professor at the UT Southwestern Medical Center. In 2004, he inherited a new department head, Levine, known to comment “MiddleEasterners are lazy.” He was promised a post at the hospital even after he resigned his academic job. Nassar’s resignation letter cited Levine’s harassment as the reason. A Dr. Fitz who received the Nassar resignation letter felt he had to defend and exonerate his colleague Levine. Fitz convinced the hospital to withdraw its job offer to Nassar. Nassar filed two claims — discrimination by Levine and retaliation by the University that cost him his hospital position.
The five conservative justices actually stated that the lessening causation standard “could contribute to the filing of frivolous claims.” The opinion cites EEOC statistics about the “nearly doubled” frequency of retaliation claims in the past 15 years. They equate retaliation claims with baseless claims. They seem motivated, on behalf of corporations against which these retaliation claims are filed, to reduce those numbers that bother corporate defendants.
Tags: antidiscrimination laws, Ball State, discrimination, dissenting opinion, employer responsibility, Justice Kennedy, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Nassar, retaliation, supervisor defined, Title VII, University of Texas, US Supreme Court, Vance, vicarious liability
Posted in Fairness & Social Justice Denied, Rulings by Courts, Tutorials About Bullying, WBI Education, Workplace Bullying Laws | No Archived Comments | Post A Comment (