| |
Employers who provide
regular anti-harassment training increase their chances of
establishing a defense to claims of unlawful harassment. The
Supreme Court has held that an employer may be able to avoid
or minimize liability for unlawful harassment if it can prove
that:
1. it exercised reasonable care
to prevent and correct harassment; and
2. the employee bringing a claim
unreasonably failed to report the harassment to management
or otherwise avoid the harm.
The EEOC has stated that, if feasible, employers “should
provide training to all employees to ensure that they
understand their rights and responsibilities.”
It also has stated that "[a]n employer should ensure
that its supervisors and managers understand their responsibilities
under the organization's anti-harassment policy and
complaint procedure. Periodic training of these individuals
can help achieve that result.”
Training on harassment and discrimination
prevention also can help employers avoid punitive damages.
The Supreme Court has made clear that an employer who is sued
because of a supervisor’s discrimination or harassment
will be shielded from liability for punitive damages if the
supervisor’s acts were contrary to the employer’s
good faith efforts to comply with the federal anti-discrimination
statutes.
In
each of the following harassment and discrimination cases,
evidence of whether or not the employer provided training
was a factor in determining liability or the availability
of punitive damages.
Rodriguez-Torres
v. Caribbean Forms Manufacturer, Inc., 399 F.3d 52
(1st Cir. 2005): Award of $199,999 in punitive damages
for discriminatory discharge was upheld, in part based on
evidence that the employer did not provide its employees with
anti-discrimination training.
Holly
D. v. California Institute of Technology, 339 F.3d
1158 (9th Cir. 2003): State university employer established
affirmative defense to harassment claim in part based on evidence
that it conducted periodic training on sexual harassment.
Ocheltree
v. Scollon Productions, 335 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2003):
Employer found liable for co-worker harassment where company
lacked a clear sexual harassment policy and there was no evidence
that it conducted any preventive training.
Godinet
v. Management and Training Corp, 5 Fed. Appx. 865
(10th Cir. 2003): Award of $150,000 in punitive damages for
intentional discrimination and retaliation was upheld, where
the employer offered no evidence of anti-discrimination training
of supervisors who were implicated in the employee's claims
and the employer took no action after the employee informed
it of his intention to file a discrimination suit.
Hatley
v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 308 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2002):
The employer made out the "good faith" defense to
punitive damages. Its supervisor’s actions were found
to be contrary to the employer’s good faith effort to
prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, as evidenced by
the fact that the employer had a well-publicized policy forbidding
sexual harassment, gave training on sexual harassment to new
employees, established a grievance procedure for sexual harassment
complaints, and initiated an investigation of the plaintiffs'
complaints.
Anderson
v. G.D.C., Inc., 281 F.3d 452 (4th Cir. 2002): The
court held that a rational jury could conclude that the employer
did not engage in good faith efforts to comply with the federal
anti-discrimination requirements. The employer never adopted
an anti-discrimination policy, “nor did it provide any
training whatsoever on the subject of discrimination.”
EEOC v. Harbert
Yeargin, 266 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 2002): Although the
employer had an anti-harassment policy, employees did not
receive training and several testified that they were unaware
of the policy’s existence. The district court judgment
against the employer was affirmed and the jury’s award
of $300,001 was reduced by $1 to conform to the statutory
cap on damages.
Golson v. Green Tree Financial Servicing
Corp., 26 Fed. Appx. 209 (4th Cir. 2002) (unpublished):
The court upheld an award of $230,000 in punitive damages
for pregnancy discrimination. The employer’s EEO policy
made no mention of pregnancy discrimination. Furthermore,
there was no evidence that the employer required or even offered
training on Title VII compliance. The court found nothing
in the record to show that the employer ever made its managers
and supervisors aware that pregnancy discrimination is a form
of unlawful sex discrimination.
Cadena
v. The Pacesetter Corporation: 224 F.3d 1203
(10th Cir. 2000): A manager responsible for sexual harassment
training testified that she discussed the topic of sexual
harassment at meetings on a monthly basis, but another manager
testified that no such training sessions occurred. Furthermore,
the manager responsible for training gave deposition testimony
demonstrating her ignorance about sexual harassment. The court
affirmed an award of $300,000 in compensatory and punitive
damages, $131,368.30 in attorney’s fees, and $6,735.70
in related expenses.
Church v. State of Maryland,
180 F.Supp.2d 708 (D.Md. 2002): The State of Maryland successfully
established a defense in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought
by a correctional officer. The defense was based in part on
evidence that the State effectively implemented an anti-harassment
policy; provided training on the policy and complaint procedure
for all incoming officers at the correctional training academy;
and provided periodic anti-harassment training for supervisors.
Roelen v. Akron Beacon Journal,
199 F.Supp.2d 685 (N.D. Ohio 2002): The employer successfully
defended against a harassment claim in part based on evidence
that it implemented and enforced an anti-harassment policy
and provided mandatory harassment training.
Mancuso v. City of Atlantic City,
193 F.Supp.2d 789 (D. New Jersey 2002): The court denied the
employer’s motion for summary judgment in part because
of significant questions regarding the employer’s anti-harassment
efforts. While the employer did provide some training to its
employees, the plaintiff and others contended that they were
never provided with any information regarding sexual harassment
beyond being required to read and sign the employer’s
policy. There also was testimony that the training was not
provided with any sort of regularity.
Dinkins v. Charoen Pokphand USA,
Inc., 133 F.Supp.2d 1254 (M.D. Ala. 2001): The court found
that the employer failed to prevent and correct workplace
harassment. Although the employer had a written anti-harassment
policy, it was not comprehensive, well-known to employees,
or vigorously enforced. The policy “was poorly administered
by supervisors who had no training and almost no concept of
what constitutes sexual harassment.” The court denied
the employer’s motion for summary judgment.
Miller v. Woodharbor Molding &
Millworks, 80 F.Supp.2d 1026 (N.D. Iowa 2000): The
employer failed to establish a defense to the plaintiff’s
sexual harassment claim. Although the employer had adopted
an anti-harassment policy, it failed to train its supervisors
to ensure that they were familiar with the policy and the
company’s complaint procedure
Masson v. School Bd. of Dade Co.,
36 F.Supp.2d 1354, (S.D. 1999): The school board proved that
it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment
based on evidence that, among other preventive measures, its
EEO officer conducted workshops and training sessions for
supervisors on sexual harassment.
EEOC v. Barton Protective Servs.,
47 F.Supp.2d 57 (D.D.C. 1999): The employer was granted summary
judgment, in part, because it provided "additional EEO
training for its managers and distributed written materials
on how to prevent harassment".
Booker v. Budget
Rent-A-Car Systems, 17 F.Supp.2d 735 (M.D. Tenn.
1998): The employer was unable to establish a defense to a
racial harassment claim. Although it had a policy addressing
racial harassment, it failed to prove that it distributed
this policy to employees or that management ever received
any kind of training on the subject.
|
