Offensive Web site helps worker win discrimination suit
August 4, 2008 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Employee computer use, Security and law, Special Report
Why should HR care how employees are using company computers? Because they might be doing something that can land you in court.
In one recent case, an employee sued her former employer for sexual harassment. Her claim: On three separate occasions, she was exposed to pornography being viewed by a co-worker.
The company tried to have the case thrown out, claiming that no “adverse action” was ever taken against the women — i.e., she wasn’t fired, demoted, given a pay cut, etc. — and the three instances weren’t serious enough to warrant a lawsuit.
But the judge ruled for the employee. According to the court, exposure to offensive material like pornography is “uniquely and extremely severe” — and enough to create a hostile work environment and constitute sexual harassment.
Tips for managers
As this case shows, companies can be on the hook for offensive or illegal content employees download at work. Even without other complaints, that can be enough to lead to a harassment suit.
Here are three things employers can do to stay out of trouble:
- Have a policy. A good computer use policy requires cooperation between IT and HR. HR’s job is to decide what’s acceptable and what isn’t, and IT decides how behavior will be blocked and/or monitored.
- Respond to complaints. Companies aren’t expected to know what every single employee is doing at all times — it’s when managers are made aware of offensive behavior and don’t do anything that companies get in trouble. Make sure supervisors understand the dangers of not taking action when employees complain.
- Be wary of getting too strict. Keeping employees from viewing porn is one thing — telling employees they can never use the Internet for personal reasons is another. The latter could cause backlash among many employees.
Cite: Criswell v. Intellirisk Management Corp.
Tags: policies, pornography at work, sexual harassment, Web browsing
August 4th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Sexual harassment laws in the country are completely out of control. Let’s face it, men and women are sexual creatures and, as we at The Hanky Panky Report can attest, things happen when they get together. This has been going on througout the world for as long as men and women have been working together. In most of the world, the sexual dynamic between men and women is understood to be part of life and unwanted sexual advances are met with a polite “no, thank you.” In this country, they are frequently met with a lawsuit.
No one should be made to feel that their job may be threatened if they don’t sleep with the boss. There are a number of problems with the American system, however. First, is the systemic presumption that almost any sexual advance, or sexually themed joke or conversation is offensive and therefore actionable. Second, the rampant gender discrimination pursuant to which complaints by females are presumed credible whereas complaints by males are considered whining, to the extent they are ever raised.
The threat of being sued for sexual harassment has resulted in massive expenditures at corporations for sexual harassment sensitivity training, as well as settling thousands of bogus claims. The Hanky Panky Report is aware of at least one executive (an attractive middle aged male) who felt compelled to enact drastic measures to ensure that he would not find himself being sued including installing video cameras in the office, keeping interior office windows covered with blinds and never attending a meeting with a female employee alone.
These measures may seem paranoid to some, but considering the history of these allegations, they may well be sensible and even advisable. As the saying goes, you’re not paranoid if they really are out to get you.
A recent case decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court offers some hope that we may at last have seen the limits to which the law will accommodate the often absurd and baseless claims alleging sexual harassment. The Court today issued a ruling in a case in which two female students at the Princeton Theological Seminary sued the seminary for sexual harassment after a resident of the seminary (who was not an employee or student) asked the two out on dates in 1999 and 2000. The girls informed the seminary of the man’s conduct and requested the school stop it. In response, the seminary advised the women that it had no legal authority stop the man’s behavior since he was not affiliated with the seminary (he simply rented a publicly available apartment from the seminary) and advised the women to contact the police, if necessary. Three years later, the women sued the seminary claiming that it should have taken more action to ensure the man did not ask them out again.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled for the seminary, holding that the women “cannot rely on the prospect of a money damages award from the Seminary to replace their own obligation to simply tell (the man) that they had no interest in him romantically or even as a casual acquaintance.”
It is sad that our state’s court system was needlessly burdened for five years with such a frivolous lawsuit. It is high time that the law formally recognize what we should all inherently know to be true - that sex happens, it is a natural (and typically enjoyable) part of life, and it is neither just, nor efficient to expect our schools, employers, or our states to “protect” our citizens from normal social encounters with our fellow human beings simply because some citizens lack appropriate social skills and feel uncomfortable.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Greg Vinson has spoken like someone who is not accountable or responsible for anyone or any company’s profits. His response is completely understandable if the only person he has to be concerned about is what he likes or doesn’t like.
Personally I am a moral person which many times also is a desirable traight in employees because morality itself implies discipline and that others people’s safety, and well-being is considered, not just their own. BUT since that may not be everyone’s reasoning I will approach this from more of a business model…
It would be great if we could live without restrictions or rules but sadly there are too many selfish people who only think of themselves and are not concerned about how others may be effected by their personal actions.
Maybe Greg works in a brothel, or some sex shop in Denmark but for the rest of us whose bosses are not in a “Sex Trade”, sex and the work place don’t add up to profit.
Infact, many times sex in the office is detrimental to a free flow of ideas and cooperation. It is distracting at best and offensive at worst, but definately not required to fulfill most peoples’ job description. (OK. Except for the Sex-Trade….)
I happen to work in the IT field and all the bosses I have had (none have been in any sex-trade related business) have been preoccupied with profit and efficiency, NOT anyone’s sexual desires. (Somehow their overwelming interest in profit seems realistic to me and not really far fetched?)
Have there been frivolous lawsuits? Of course, and those should be thrown out. But to say that we are just animals that lust after each other naturally and therefore should just be allowed to frolic freely in the workplace is stupid.
Without rules there is ciaos. Rules can be overdone but reasonable rules that consider others and allow for the undistracted concentration on performing the duties that I was hired for are usually good for all.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Armin - I think you missed the point of Greg’s comment. Completely and totally missed it.
I don’t see that he advocates “no rules”, generalizes that we are all animals consumed with lust (which is not even a valid metaphor), or indicates that this is related to the “Sex Trade”.
His response is completely reasonable from the point of view that YOU are responsible for your OWN life. If something offends you, realize that you just might be the only person offended by it. I wish people would quit insisting that their moral code must be observed by everyone else. I’m offended by that.
His response is completely reasonable from the point of view that you are not entitled to life free from offense. You are going to be offended at some point in time in your life and that’s just a fact. Get over it. It’s not something to sue over. Let the person who is doing it know that you are offended. Remove yourself from the situation. Quit associating with the person who has the offensive habit. If you find yourself in a situation that you can’t prevent the offense, then you still have the choice to leave.
I wish the “victims” in this country would get wise to the fact that they are systematically handing over their rights to be managed by someone else (the government).
I’m sorry, but the case just reeks of “WAH, I was offended - PAY ME!”