a. Submission to such conduct is a "term of condition" for employment

b. Submission to such conduct is the basis for employment decisions (such as promotions or pay raises)

c. Such conduct unreasonably un reasonably interferes with a person's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment

Under title VII of the CRA, SH is Sexual discrimination because of your sex.

--> Represents consensus ruling from previous courts, simply drafts made by the EEOC's lawyers...NOT LAW

-"tangible evidence of discrimination IS NOT required to prove sexual harassment".. earlier cases in the 70s required it (e.g. firing)

a. Employees

b. Applicants

c. Others at work

a. Supervisors or managers (agents) irrespective of where the act takes place

b. Co-workers within the work site

c. non-employees if the act takes place within the work site

NOTHING. 

-Though, an employers liability for "fellow" employees or non-employees can be reduced if it takes immediate and appropriate action

        -->2-3 days after statement

        -->Handle just like any other disciplinary dispute

a. Affirmitively raise the subject among employees, particularly managers

b. Express strong dissapprovall; a written policy is mandated

c. Develop appropriate sanctions

d. Inform employees of their right to raise (and how to raise) the issue of harassment

e. Develop methods to sensitize all concerned (a very difficult task)

Meritor Savings Bank vs. Vinson (1986)

-Background

-Key Issue

-Key circumstances (court's interpretation of them)

-The Sumpreme court ruling

1. Bank teller resigned after four years of sexual activity with the branch bank president. Voluntarily engaged in the activity and never complained to anyone regarding the harassment

2. Is a "hostile work environment" case going to be actionable?

3. The fact that there were no complaints and the act was voluntary is not a defense by the bank

4. Hostile work environment cases can be actionable if the harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the "condition of employment" of the victim... even if the harassment does not result in economic detriment ... the key issue is "unwelcome" 

5. Failure of the employee to invoke an existing procedure or policy concerning the harassment does not absolutely and automatically insulate the emplorer

6. The "good news" to companies: employers are not automatically liable for sexeual harassment by superiors ... but absence of notice to employer does not necessary insulate the employer ... rules on a case by case basis.

Supervisor promises career advantages in return for sexual advances, she says no and her career was not negatively affected....

Company wants case thrown out bc her career was not negatively impacted

--Court ruled that such a threat even an empty one can be proved to be a hostile work environment violation and can leave an unknowing employer liable

1. Employees are responsible for harassemnt by their supervisory employees

2. When the harassment results, in a tangible employment action such as discharge, demotion, or undesireable assignment, the employer's liability is absolute

3. When there has been no tangible action, an employer can defend themselves by proving two things:

       a. That the employer has taken reasonable care to prevent and correct                    

           promptly any sexually harassing behavior (policies and procedures)

       b. That the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any

            preventative or corrective opportunities provided.  

Mandated, you must do it

No EEOC guidelines

Hire lawyers or independent fact-finders

Have a man AND a woman

Look for any documentation

Avoid writing up statement for employee

Interviewing the alledged harasser: Express need for truth and cooperation; advise to refrain from any reprisal; breach of truth or reprisal could alone result in discipline action

a. makes it a federal crime to hire illegal aliens

b. Created an amnesty program to grant legal status to aliens in the US since 1982

--> Designed to protect the US economy... perception in the 1980s that aliens were taking jobs

--Puts the burden of policing illegal aliens on the employer:

    -Employers must fill out I-9 forms for all employees 

          -Form requires proof of identity and employment eligibility

--Employer is required to record both documents and check for their authenticity

--Required to carry documentation for 3 yrs from date of employment or firing

First Offense: $275 - $2200 for each illegal worker

Second Offense: 2,200 - 5,500 for each

additional offenses: 3,000 - 11,000 for each and possible imprisonment

False statements on I-9 = fine and up to five years in jail

Requires covered employees to provide eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for the:

 -Birth, adoption, or foster care of a child ... or the

-Serious illness of the employee or a spouse, parent or child

COVERED EMPLOYERS:

-50 or more employees in 75 mile radius

ELIGILBLE EMPLOYEES

-Been there atleast a yr and worked over 1250 hours in the past 12 months

a. each gets 12 weeks for their own serious health conditions, sick child, care for each other

    a total of 12 wks is given for sick parent care, healthy infant, or adopted child

b. Intermittent and reduced leave is available

c. Yes, planned medical treatment should be scheduled to cause minimal disruptions to the operation of buiness

Prima Facie case: on first view adequate to establish a fact or raise the presumption of guilt

  1. Protected Class

  2. Applied for a job and was qualified

  3. Rejected

  4. Employer continued to seek applicants or hired somone less qualified

Discrimination

   Prejudicial Treatment:  bigoted attitude

   Disparate Treatment: treated differently

   Disparate Impact: A bottom line impact for what ever reason (Griggs case)

1. BFOQ

   a. Job relatedness

   b. Business necessity

   *Never "race"

   ** Diaz vs. Pan American... Male applicant wanting to be a flight attendant

2. Seniority System

3. Having an Affirmative action program (Women, minorities, disabled vets, Vietnam vets)

Misinterpretation of British law, became an american precedent

about 75% of workforce is at-will

Balance of power between the employee and employer

a. Civil rights/ADEA/ADA/etc.

b. Worker's Compensation

c. Jury Duty

d. Annual Training

e. Union Activity

f. Contracting EEOC/OSHA/ etc.

a. For the public good

b. Implied contract

c. Outrageous conduct (Moon River Case)

d. Bad Faith Dealing

1. Did employee have prior warning that his/her conduct would result in discilpline... including possible discharge?

2. Was the misconduct related to the SAFE, EFFICIENT, and ORDERLY operation of the company?

3. Was an investigation held?

4. Was the investigation fair and objective?

5. Did the investigation obtain evidence of the employee's guilt?

6. Was the discilplinary action nondiscriminatory?

7. Was the discipline:

      a. Reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense... and

      b. The employee's record with the company

-Job Incumbents          -Supervisor

-Trained Job Analysts  -Customers

Observation (hawthorne effect)

Interviews (time/small groups)

Diary (frekvensor)

Questionnaire (response rates, illiteracy)

Critical incidence log (just record the "abnormal activites")

Conference with Job Experts

FJA: functional job analysis******DOT = dictionary of occupational titles > 40k titles

O*Net: occupational information network

Standardized Job Analysis Questionnaires:

    -PAQ: Position Analysis Questionnaire

    -JEI: Job Element Inventory

    -MPDQ: Management Position Description Questionnaire

-Recruiting

-Orientation

-Group Discussion

-Performance evaluation

-Training and development

-Personnel planning

-Job Evaluation (the "worth" of the job)

-Government compliance (ADA)

Skills

Knowlede

Abilities

Sources:

  -Promotion-from-within

  -Transfers/demotion

  -Job rotation

  -Recalls and or rehires

Methods:

  -Job postings: intranet or bulletin board

  -Skills inventories

Sources:

-Unsolicited Applicants: cold-callers, walk-ins, causuals, gate callers, or Write-ins that send in resume

-Employments agencies: private employment (10% of starting salary) and public employment/ and executive searches

-Employee referral programs: has the highest 1 yr survival rate 

-Temp agencies

-other companies

-trade/professional associations

-schools

-foreign nationals

Methods:

-radio/tv                                        -Computerized services (lisitngs)

-newspaper                                   -A&M of companies

-Special Events (career fair)           -Internships

-Contract recruiting                        -Contingent workforce recruiting

-Internet

Evaluate information

Provide information 

Sell the organization

Establish Goodwill 

Overtime (easiest and the quickest)

Temp help (huge industry)

Subcontract

Training and promote (time consuming)

Recall (handle the fears of "returning" employees

Korn/Ferry

Heifrick associates

SpencerStuart

Russell Reynolds Associates

Highland Partners

A.T. Kearney

Headhunters

Body Merchants

Pirates

Cowboys

Bucket Ships

Misc. Facts about executive search companies

-Compensation

-Types of:

-AESC

-GOLDEN RULE

-Red Book

-Success rate

-30 to 35 percent of starting salary packages including value of benefits and estimated bonus

-Retainer and contingency: retain = flat rate, contingency = only if success is found

-Association of exec. search consultants

-Never recruit from own client = walking on both sides of the street

-Directory of executive and professional recruiters

-50-60% success rate for the entite industry

Contact 100+ people

Narrow down to about 10-15 (meet with them)

3 to 5 actually meet the client 

---Takes 3-4 weeks startup in clients company, 3-4 months to complete

-Nepotism

-Hiring in your own image: "Steve Miller Trio"

-Bigotry

-Sex-type jobs (job-satisfaction of jumpers)

-Selection tool (bias lies in the test)

Test/Re-test: test them, wait for some time, and test them again... are the scores the same?

Inter-judge: Do different judges see the same conclusion?

Split-half: same question shows up twice, consistent answers?