Dive Brief:
- A federal appeals court has upheld a jury's determination that a Chicago butcher was subject to sex discrimination because only men, not women, were harassed at his workplace (Smith v. Rosebud Farm, Inc. dba Rosebud Farmstand, No 17-2626 (7th Cir., Aug. 2, 2018)).
- Robert Smith sued Rosebud Farm after several years of sexual harassment from his male coworkers and supervisor. Rosebud argued that the meat counter culture was one of "sexual roughhousing, not sex discrimination." A jury returned a verdict in his favor of $2.4 million but it was reduced to $470,000 because of Title VII’s statutory cap and "the excessive nature of the award."
- Title VII is an anti-discrimination statute, not an anti-harassment stature, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals observed on appeal. If Smith had worked in all-male environment, the fact that only men were touched and groped would not raise an inference of sex discrimination, the court said. But he did not, and his female co-workers did not experience the same harassment, leaving the jury free to reasonably conclude that Smith was subject to discrimination on the basis of sex.
Dive Insight:
Policies, procedures and training that address sexual harassment are a good start, but they're not enough; employers also need to focus on culture at all levels, experts say. Companies need to ensure that the values spelled out in policies are infused into the workplace culture, Jonathan Segal, a partner with Duane Morris LLP previously told HR Dive.
When managers and supervisors receive a complaint, they should thank the complainant for coming forward so as to avoid any inference of retaliation, he suggested. Even if a later investigation doesn’t reveal up any harassment, employers can still be liable for retaliation, so tell the complainant that you appreciate them bringing their concerns to you, Segal said.
In Smith, court documents say that when the plaintiff's supervisor received notice of a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge, he told the employees "to stop goofing off" and to quit the "horseplay." But, the court said, this only changed the behavior of Smith’s coworkers; they "banged their cleavers menacingly at him" and, one day, Smith discovered his car tires slashed and windshield cracked, despite having parked in a gated, employee-only lot.
Many employers know not to retaliate against an employee who has filed an EEOC complaint, but failing to stop retaliatory behavior from co-workers can render a company just as liable. Instead, experts suggest that employers who receive charges take them seriously, and respond as directed.