Articles for September 2006 Court Dismisses Assigned Employee’s Harassment Claims - A Missouri federal court has dismissed an assigned employee’s sexual harassment and retaliation claims against a staffing firm customer.
Court Dismisses Assigned Employee’s Harassment Claims A Missouri federal court has dismissed an assigned employee’s sexual harassment and retaliation claims against a staffing firm customer. The court ruled that the conduct described was not so severe or pervasive as to be unlawful and that the customer had no knowledge of the employee’s claims when it terminated her assignment. While placed on assignment as an analytical chemist, the assigned employee claimed that during her assignment her supervisor unlawfully harassed her by staring at her inappropriately, giving her a “body scan,“ making comments that she interpreted to be inappropriate sexual innuendoes, becoming moody when she did not pay attention to him and generally using a “romantic tone of voice.“ She further claimed that the customer terminated her assignment because she complained about the supervisor to the staffing firm. The court found that the employee was not subjected to unlawful harassment, as she was not exposed to threatening, violent or overtly sexual conduct. It also found that, even if all of the employee’s allegations were true, her supervisor’s conduct was not so severe or offensive as to poison the work environment or interfere with her work performance. The court also dismissed the employee’s retaliation claim, finding that the customer had no knowledge of the employee’s complaints when it terminated her assignment and therefore could not have ended it in retaliation for her having complained of the supervisor’s alleged conduct. As this case shows, it is generally not unlawful for an employer to engage in sporadic use of offensive language, gender-related jokes, occasional teasing, and isolated comments or workplace incidents that an employee perceives to be offensive. To be unlawful, the relevant conduct must be extreme—not merely rude, uncivil, or unpleasant
Source: CareersUSA, CareerBuilder.com - Back to Top -
Tight Market, Creative Recruiting In a tight labor market, finding skilled labor is a tough proposition. To meet the needs of customers, staffing firms are finding creative ways to recruit mature workers and retain the wisdom, knowledge and expertise they bring to the workplace. The Associated Press recently reported on a program in which a staffing firm’s customer brought back 35 to 40 retirees. Because they don’t come back as employees of the customer, they’re able to continue withdrawing from their retirement plans. The employees are offered flexible hours and need little training because they’re used to the company’s culture Jacquie Timmons, 67, retired after 41 years with a company but soon got bored. She now works three days a week—and plans trips to Hawaii, Alaska, and Europe. She has no intentions to slow down. “I get my challenge, I’m around people, and I still like to travel,“ Timmons says. “And I have flexibility, so I’ve got it made.“ Earlier this year, AARP, a nonprofit organization for people age 50 and over, collaborated with the American Staffing Association and other associations to form the Alliance for an Experienced Workforce. The alliance brings together employers and employees to help promote strategies for recruiting and retaining mature workers. “These dynamic employers recognize the importance of creating a mutually beneficial work environment for mature workers, says AARP CEO Bill Novelli. “Flexible arrangements can be a big part of that positive environment.“ Source: American Staffing Association, Reem El-Khatib - Back to Top -
Employee Can Show Pretext by Disagreeing with Employer’s Subjective Reasons for His Layoff In Tomasso v. The Boeing Company, 445 F.3d 702 (3d Cir. 2006), the Third Circuit held that an employee terminated in a bona fide reduction-in-force (RIF) may proceed to a jury on his age discrimination claim, based on his disagreement with some of his supervisor’s subjective reasons for giving him a low rating. After nearly 40 years of employment with the Boeing Company, plaintiff Joseph Tomasso, age 59, was among seven employees laid off in his department in a reduction-in-force implemented to reduce operating costs and overhead. Although additional reasons were proffered by the supervisor, the Court concluded that a jury could find that, standing alone, those were not enough to justify the termination decision. Thus, the case was remanded for trial. Tomasso subsequently brought claims for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment for Boeing, concluding that Tomasso had failed to demonstrate that Boeing’s numerous rationales for his layoff were pretextual. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that Tomasso had adequately challenged Boeing’s proffered non-discriminatory reasons for his layoff. EDITORS’ COMMENT: This case illuminates the importance of objective documented support for adverse employment decisions. This type of evidence is especially critical in the context of a RIF because, as noted in the dissenting opinion, “subjective criteria take on a greater significance as the employer looks to draw finer distinctions . . . between otherwise competent employees.“ Id. *20. Source: Proskauer Rose LLP - Back to Top - In a pinch for temporary personnel? order staff online By registering with www.CareersUSA.com, you can request staff conveniently from your computer desktop any time of the day. Be sure to bookmark our website so you can easily access industry-specific surveys that offer real-time statistics on interesting employment topics. Also, you’ll find archived issues of HIREWIRE News. Visit www.CareersUSA.com today for more information. - Back to Top -
We hope you enjoyed
reading this issue of HIREWIRE.
Copyright 2006 CareersUSA, Inc. All Rights
Reserved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |||||