EMPLOYMENT LAW BASICS FOR HAWAII EMPLOYERS: ILLINOIS RULING HIGHLIGHTS THE IMPORTANCE OF POLICIES AND TRAINING TO HAWAII
It is well established now under federal Title VII law that an employer is liable for actionable sexual a supervisor with "immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee." However, in cases where the employee does not suffer a "tangible employment action," such as discharge, demotion, or an unfavorable reassignment, there is defense that an employer may raise to avoid Title VII liability and damages.
Under such affirmative defense whether an employer has an anti-harassment policy is relevant evidence. Also important is effective supervisory training and training of employees on the harassment policy and complaint procedure.
Training and educational programs for all employees take on higher degree of importance under Hawaii state law, HRS Chapter 378. State law currently is interpreted Civil Rights Commission (“HCRC”) as mandating strict liability for sexual harassment committed by supervisors.
While the Hawaii Supreme Court has not addressed the HCRC’s interpretation of HRS Chapter 378 a recent Illinois Supreme Court decision upheld Rights Commission ruling addressing a regulation similar to the HCRC’s--that an employer was strictly liable for harassing conduct under Illinois state law even though the supervisor did not even have direct supervisory the Complainant.
The April 16, 2009 Illinois decision will certainly be persuasive authority to a Hawaii Supreme Court faced with interpreting the HCRC’s regulation. Accordingly, it is critical that Hawaii employers understand the importance of having policy and company-wide training program on not only a defense to a sexual harassment claim, but
I. The Importance of Having an Effective Harassment Policy
A. The Faragher/Ellerth Defense
Having an effective sexual harassment policy and training increase the chance of avoiding liability under the affirmative defense for sexual harassment claims recognized by Court in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton , 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (“ Faragher ”) and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth , 742 (1998) (“ Ellerth ”).
Where alleged harassment by a supervisor does not culminate in an adverse (“tangible”) employment employer may avoid liability by showing that: (1) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and any harassing behavior; and (2) the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer to avoid harm. "A tangible employment action constitutes a significant change in as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities or a decision causing a in benefits." Ellerth, supra .
The importance of the Faragher/Ellerth defense was significantly increased by the U.S. Supreme Court's State Police v. Suders , 542 U.S. 129 (2004), which held that the defense is available in unless the plaintiff quits in a reasonable response to an employer-sanctioned adverse action of an official a demotion or a cut in pay.
A zero-tolerance harassment policy must fit the environment and employees. The Ellerth court stated:
While proof that an employer had promulgated an antiharassment policy with complaint procedure is not necessary in every instance as a matter of law, the need for a stated policy suitable to the employment circumstances may in any case when litigating the first element of the defense. The policy should be written in plain English, so that all employees regardless of their educational level or background can understand it ... [a] include a clear and precise definition of unlawful harassment so that employees know what type of conduct is prohibited by the policy and will be able to recognize that conduct should it occur.
Accordingly, if the alleged harasser has supervisory authority over the victim, the employer will be held automatically liable for any harassment committed by the supervisor unless the employer is able to successfully raise the affirmative defense.
It is better to realize as early as possible that going through a bankruptcy claim is not easy. People generally opt for it as their first remedy. You must know the bankruptcy laws well in order
The bankruptcy law has been crafted in a way to promote provisions that are a part bankruptcy claims. It contains systematized laws that help the debtor to rid himself of any financial obligations that he has to undergo. The Chapter 7 bankruptcy law is in other words called straight bankruptcy. This law deals with the liquidation process. According to this, the one who is filing for bankruptcy has to surrender all his assets except those that are unaccredited or exempted to the lawyer or the trustee in bankruptcy.
The court must appoint a trustee in bankruptcy and he will be given charge of selling the assets or converting them into cash. Once the assets have been converted to cash the creditors are paid with these funds. Under the Chapter 7 bankruptcy law you are discharged from any obligation after a period of four months.
Feldman Law Center — A recent New York Times editorial indicates that the Obama honeymoon may be end as the faltering economy continues to eliminate jobs and a tidal wave of foreclosures grows month. Through May foreclosure filings reached the one million mark with estimates for the whole of 2009 coming in at 2.4 million. The foreclosure issue, as large as it is presently, could easily exceed the if job losses stay at their current pace of over 600,000 per month. As it stands, 15.4 homes are currently underwater with mortgage balances that exceed home values. Additionally, 5.4 million homes are currently some stage of the foreclosure process.
The New York Times concludes that “The Obama administration needs to efforts to aid the middle class — or the financial crisis will have no end in proposes a two part solution to the foreclosure crisis; the first being economic stimulus to stem argument that holds obvious merit. Their second proposal concludes that “Loan modification programs that reduce monthly be effective, because the bigger problem is negative equity.” They fault the administration for building a on lower monthly mortgage payments while only recommending principle reductions instead of somehow making them mandatory. The Times also criticizes the administration’s anti-foreclosure plan which was recently gutted by the large banks and mortgage lenders.
The cure-all proposed by The New York Times appears to be focused on principle reductions across the board which enough to restore some equity to borrowers, giving them additional motivation to stay in their homes to borrow against their new-found equity should a hardship such as the loss of a job occur.
By the end of the editorial, the Times is calling for home equity to be restored to homeowners, jobs to be added to the economy, and steady paychecks for all. How banks remain solvent, who stimulus, and how regular pay checks are covered in this grand plan is left for someone else to answer. The Times does get it half right in that it’s fixing the economy that will finally crisis. The big questions again are how and how much will it take?
