Unlawful Harassment Prevention for Supervisors trains managers to deal with the special issues and challenges they face in the workplace. Workplace Answers’ training program addresses supervisors' dual obligations under the law – to serve as behavioral role models and to handle and pursue workplace harassment complaints by and about employees. Register for a Course Demo.
In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court gave employers a powerful 'affirmative defense' against claims of workplace harassment and discrimination in the workplace. But if your employees and supervisors
in unlawful harassment prevention, including sexual harassment prevention (California AB 1825), your organization might not be able to use this critically important legal defense.
All employees and supervisors must receive compliance training regularly. A lack of training can automatically eliminate any chance of mounting or establishing an affirmative defense.
Our courses are developed by attorneys who are experts in employment law and meet the requirements for trainers outlined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Workplace Answers’ Unlawful Harassment Prevention course was written by employment lawyers and harassment prevention experts. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC) consulted Workplace Answers when it needed information regarding Web-based sexual harassment training, and Workplace Answers is endorsed by Jackson Lewis LLP, one of most the world's most knowledgeable legal firms in the field of workplace law.
Implementing a workplace harassment training policy that eliminates even one lawsuit can represent an amazing return on your training investment. The U.S. Supreme Court and the EEOC have made clear that workplace harassment prevention programs should address all the protected categories.1 The Supreme Court has also said that compliance training helps prevent punitive damages. (Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U.S. 526, 1999)
Workplace harassment and discrimination claims are expensive, and the statistics are frightening:
Failure to Appropriately Train Employees Can Mean High Punitive Damage Awards
Greene v. Coach, Inc., 218 F.Supp.2d 404, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) – Compliance training every other year is not enough to prevent liability if the workplace
harassment prevention training did not occur during the year(s) that the alleged workplace harassment occurred.
In this case, even though the employer had conducted seven harassment prevention training sessions,
it did not conduct any anti-harassment training during the two years of the
plaintiff's employment. By not training on an annual basis, the employer lost
the ability to claim a good-faith defense in court, and the case proceeded to a jury
trial. Click here for the complete case.
Mathis v. Phillips Chevrolet, Inc., 269 F.3d 771 (7th Cir.
2001) – Punitive damages are awarded where no workplace harassment training is conducted. Court held that
"leaving managers with hiring authority in ignorance of the basic features of
the discrimination laws is an 'extraordinary mistake' for a company to make,
and a jury can find that such an extraordinary mistake amounts to reckless
indifference" of laws against discrimination in the workplace. Click here for the complete case.
Romano v. U-HAUL International, 233 F.3d 655 (1st Cir. 2000) –
Court held that a written policy against workplace discrimination, without more, is
insufficient to insulate an employer from punitive damages liability. The employer
did not put forth evidence "of an active mechanism for renewing employees'
awareness of the policies through...specific education programs." Click here for the complete case.
Top
Effective and Appropriate Compliance Training Can Help to Eliminate
Punitive Damages
Bryant v. Aiken Regional Medical Center, Inc., 333 F.3d 536
(4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 68 (2004) – $210,000 punitive-damage award is reversed in a workplace discrimination and retaliation case where,
despite manager's unlawful actions, employer demonstrated "good-faith efforts"
to comply with workplace harassment laws and discrimination laws by issuing an EEO policy,
training employees in harassment and discrimination prevention and voluntarily monitoring
departments to identify workplace discrimination. Click here for the complete case.
Hatley v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 308 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2002)
rehearing denied, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 24504 (5th Cir. Nov. 5, 2002) – The court
refused to let a jury even consider awarding punitive damages against an employer
that had a "well-publicized policy forbidding sexual harassment, gave
training on sexual harassment to new employees, etc..." Click here for the complete case.
Hull v. APCOA, Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 247 (N.D. Ill. 2000)
– Court held that employer's policy prohibiting workplace harassment and discrimination,
and the fact that regular compliance training was conducted on the policy, indicated
employer's good-faith efforts. Employer's motion for summary judgment on
punitive damages award granted. Click here for the complete case.
Top
Insufficient Training Does Not Support an Affirmative Defense
Soto v. John Morrell & Co., 285 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (N.D. Iowa
2003) – Employer unable to establish affirmative defense because it could not
prove plaintiff's manager had workplace harassment prevention training, despite
evidence that the HR Director spoke to managers yearly on the subject, that the
company had an internal requirement that managers receive workplace harassment
prevention training yearly, that the employer distributed a bilingual
workplace harassment policy (at orientation and annually) which employees were required
to sign and acknowledge, hung large posters on unlawful harassment prevention and the president sent each employee – including the plaintiff – a
letter clearly stating that harassment violated company policy. Click here for the complete case.
Hargrave v. County of Atlantic, 262 F. Supp. 2d 393 (D.N.J.
2003) – New Jersey U.S. District Court codified that there is no affirmative
defense available to employers, unless workplace harassment prevention training is
mandated for supervisors and made available to all employees. Click here for the complete case.
Gaines v. Bellino, 801 A.2d 322 (2002) – New Jersey Supreme
Court held that the absence of "effective preventative mechanisms," such as
training, based on workplace harassment laws, is strong evidence that an employer is negligent in monitoring and
preventing workplace harassment. Training inadequacy led the court to doubt the
effectiveness of the employer's workplace harassment prevention training policy and whether that policy
could shield the employer from vicarious liability for a supervisor's
misconduct. Click here for the complete case.
Williams v. Spartan Communications, Inc., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS
5776, at *6 (4th Cir. Mar. 30, 2000) – Having a workplace harassment prevention policy but
failing to train prevents employer from establishing affirmative defense.
Elmasry v. Veith, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 340 (D.N.H. Jan. 7,
2000) – Court found workplace harassment prevention training inadequate, where employee received the company's
anti-harassment policy complaint procedure, but was not "effectively made aware
of that policy, because no one specifically pointed it out or explained it to
her," and where the company provided just "one training seminar, a portion of which
dealt with sexual harassment." Click here for the complete case.
Gordon v. Southern Bells, Inc., 67 F.Supp.2d 966 (D. Indiana
1999) – Court found that workplace harassment prevention policy on its own is not enough to establish affirmative
defense. Training is required. Click here for the complete case.
Nuri v. PRC, Inc., 13 F.Supp.2d 1296 (M.D. Ala. 1998) –
Employer failed to establish affirmative defense, even though it had a
"comprehensive, vigorously enforced policy" for sexual harassment prevention, because
employee proved that the sexual harassment policy was not well-known by employees. Click here for the complete case.
Harrison v. Eddy Potash, Inc., 158 F.3d 1371 (10th Cir. 1998) –
No affirmative defense available where plaintiff was not aware of policy, because
compliance training was not conducted. Click here for the complete case.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Davis, 979 S.W.2D 30, (Tex. App. 1998)
– No affirmative defense where company had explicit policy against harassment
and conducted "occasional" compliance training. Manager could only recall attending one
workplace harassment training session "a couple years ago." Another manager could only recall having
"15 minutes of training" on the subject. Click here for the complete case.
Williams v. Multnomah Educ. Serv. Dist., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
9113 (Oregon, April 14, 1999) – Affirmative defense could not be established
where employer had a specific procedure for workplace sexual harassment complaints, but
not racial harassment complaints. It's very important that employers train in all
protected categories, not just sexual harassment prevention such as explicitly required by California AB 1825. Click here for the complete case.
Top
Effective, Appropriate Training Supports an Affirmative Defense
Frisk v. Postmaster General, 2003 EEOPUB LIXIS 4998
(August 28, 2003) – Employer established affirmative defense where, despite
a supervisor's years of sexually harassing misconduct, employer conducted annual
workplace harassment training.
Wyatt v. Hunt Plywood, 297 F.2d 405, 407 (5th Cir. 2002) –
Court held employer's workplace harassment prevention efforts were "more than adequate." Alleged workplace harassment fell into three specific time periods, and throughout these
time periods, regular harassment prevention training sessions were conducted. Click here for the complete case.
Fuller v. Caterpillar, Inc., 124 F.Supp.2d 610 (N.D. Ill. 2000)
– Employer could establish affirmative defense, since it conducted workplace harassment
prevention training two or three times a year for all employees. Click here for the complete case.