Most employers know that they can be held legally liable for sexual harassment occurring in their workplace. However, many may not know that there’s a way to considerably reduce their exposure to liability. The courts have actually laid out a road map of sorts when it comes to reducing employer risk for sexual harassment liability. In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court made it quite clear that laws related to sexual harassment weren’t made in an effort to enable employer vs. employee lawsuits, but rather as a motivation for employers to take reasonable and responsible action in preventing sexual harassment. Employers that have demonstrated this reasonable and responsible action are less likely to be held legally liable for damages. Here are the practices and policies every employer should abide to fulfill their obligation in preventing workplace sexual harassment, thereby reducing their liability risk:
- A comprehensively written policy against sexual harassment should be in place to demonstrate the concern, stance, and dedication to the prevention of sexual harassment on the part of the employer. This policy should clearly define sexual harassment and give examples of what constitutes sexual harassment. After the policy is read, the employee should know that either gender may be victim; either gender may perpetrator; and that sexual harassment is dictated by victim perception, not whether or not the perpetrator intended the behavior as harassing.
- Legal terminology and otherwise obtuse language should be avoided when composing a sexual harassment policy. It should be written in a manner that an average employee would comprehend. In most cases, if the wording is such that a high school senior would have difficulty comprehending it, then it’s too complex. Employers should also be mindful of non-English speaking employees and publish translations accordingly.
- Make sure that the sexual harassment policy identifies which employees or department should be contacted to initiate the complaint process; outlines the complaint and investigation process from start to finish, including any appeal process; and identifies what the penalties are for sexual harassment. Retaliation should also be addressed. It should be clear that retaliation against a complainant will not be tolerated and that retaliation is a form of harassment too.
- More often than not, an employer isn’t held liable because of the actual harassment, but rather because they failed to have or apprise their employees of the complaint procedure or failed to respond when the complaint procedure was utilized. So, never write a complaint off or disregard it. Each and every complaint should be viewed as a serious matter and investigated with a process that’s consistent and that’s reasonable for all involved.
- Although many employers feel that their policy is adequate, the best policy in the world is useless if an employee can claim that they’ve never laid eyes on it. Therefore, orientation of new employees should include a signature that the new employee has received, read, and understood the sexual harassment policy.
- Of course, there must be ongoing exposure to the policy for employees to realize that their employer is actually serious about sexual harassment and the enforcement of consequences. Sources of exposure may include periodic sexual harassment summaries through brochures or educational pamphlets, newsletter articles, in-service training, and employee meetings.
- It’s also crucial that any employee in a supervisory position be trained not only to enforce the sexual harassment policy, but as someone that could be a harasser themselves. Often, especially in medium to larger businesses, the employer will not be the one to first receive a complaint. Yet, employers are strictly liable if supervisors engage in subordinate harassment or fail to enforce the harassment policy. Keep in mind that many people engage in behaviors that are overlooked by individuals they come across in their personal life and thereby feel that the same behaviors will be overlooked at work too.
The most often used excuse when an employee is accused of sexual harassment is that they weren’t the only employee that has acted in such a way. Sadly, although the above statement in no way excuses the behavior, it’s often true. And, it’s this type of environment that tolerates or overlooks sexual harassment that substantially increases the liability risk of the employer. Simply having a policy will not hold weight in court. It must be comprehensive and there must be employee exposure and employer enforcement. These steps require a time and resource commitment for the policy to be applied in a manner that will reduce sexual harassment liability risks for employers and reduce the frequency of sexual harassment incidences for employees.
Contact our office for more information.
Content provided by Transformer Marketing.
Read more
Beaches are an inexpensive way to get away (well if you stay local) and have some R&R. You can bring your entire family (yes, even a family reunion), break out the barbecue and let the kids go wild in the water.
Here are a few tips to make your trip to the beach more enjoyable.
- Protect the skin. Grab the sunscreen, that cute little umbrella, and relax knowing that you and your family are protected by the sun’s harsh rays.
- Pack the camera. Film and click away your fun filled beach day.
- Tidal pools anyone? These are fun ways to get up close and personal with some really cool creatures from the sea.
- The world is your sandbox. Well, at least for the day. Bring your shovel and pail and have some sandcastle fun with the kids.
- Go fly a kite. Literally.
- Bring the volleyball or badminton set and play a couple of games.
- Collect the seashells. These are great souvenirs and don’t cost anything. When you clean them you can add them to your fish tank or even make shell jewelry.
This summer have a blast at the beach!
Content provided by Transformer Marketing.
Read more
The third consecutive year of drought plaguing California has encouraged unprecedented legislative and regulatory efforts to conserve what limited water the state has in its supply.
Come Tuesday, state officials from the State Water Resources Control Board will meet to discuss plans to impose emergency and temporary water conservation rules and regulations on outdoor water usage, an area state officials view as posing great potential for preserving the coveted liquid.
If passed, the new rules could include a $500 daily maximum fine for “water hogs” and violators, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
Prohibited activities could include using water to wash down hard surfaces such a driveways and sidewalks; using landscaping water to the point where it would result in runoff, and the washing of vehicles unless the hose has a shut-off nozzle which controls water output.
Flushable toilets at popular state parks such as D.L. Bliss State Park at Lake Tahoe, the Hearst Castle Visitor’s Center, and Hearst San Simeon State Park have been shut down and replaced with portable toilets, according to the Associated Press. Additionally, showers at D.L. Bliss, San Simeon and Portola Redwoods State Parks have also been shut down in an effort to conserve water.
The AP notes that the officials have said the remaining water supply must be preserved for portable water at”This is not about aesthetics,” Gordon said, “as much as public health.” campsites and firefighting.
In San Francisco, city officials have raised concerns over the need to use water to wash off human fecal matter and urine from sidewalks. “We give very high priority to responding to the pee and poop requests,” said Public Works Department spokeswoman Rachel Gordon. This past year alone, San Francisco had 16,164 reports of streets and sidewalks in need of cleaning, the bulk of which concerned human waste, reports the Chronicle.
“This is not about aesthetics…as much as public health,” Gordon said, expressing that city officials have said they will continue giving priority to ensuring human waste is removed from their streets and seek necessary exemptions to use water to carry out the cleaning process.
Content provided by http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/07/13/California-Drought-Creates-Unprecedented-Temporary-Legislation-Fines
Read more
The federal Fair Labor Standards Act forbids an employer from firing a worker because he filed a complaint accusing the employer of violating the law. It doesn’t say whether the employee’s complaint must be in writing. What if the worker complains verbally but never makes a written complaint? Does the FSLA’s prohibition against firing him still apply? That was the question the U.S. Supreme Court faced in a case it decided in March 2011.
Kevin Kasten, following the instructions in the employee handbook, told his supervisor that the location of the company’s time clocks might be illegal because it prevented workers from getting credit for the time they spent putting on and removing their protective work gear. (The FSLA requires employers to pay workers for this time.) Getting no response from his supervisor, he also complained to human resources staff and told them that he was contemplating a lawsuit. Eventually, the employer fired him. He claimed that he was fired for complaining about the location of the time clock; the company said it was because he repeatedly failed to punch in and out on the clock despite several warnings.
Kasten sued the company for illegal retaliation. The trial and appellate courts, while accepting his version of what happened, ruled in favor of the employer. The FSLA, they said, requires employees to make written complaints to their employers about possible violations, but Kasten made all his complaints verbally. Kasten appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor.
Writing for the six-justice majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said, ” … (A)n interpretation that limited the provision’s coverage to written complaints would undermine the (FLSA’s) basic objectives … Why would Congress want to limit the enforcement scheme’s effectiveness by inhibiting use of the Act’s complaint procedure by those who would find it difficult to reduce their complaints to writing, particularly illiterate, less educated or overworked workers?” He also noted that the federal Department of Labor has for decades held that the law’s requirements include oral complaints, even going so far as to set up hotlines for employees to make complaints.
Moreover, Breyer pointed out that other laws, regulations and court decisions have used the word “filed” in connection with oral complaints. He particularly noted that court decisions at the time Congress enacted the FLSA used “filed” with oral complaints. “Filings may more often be made in writing … But we are interested in the filing of ‘any complaint.’ So even if the word ‘filed,’ considered alone, might suggest a narrow interpretation limited to writings, the phrase ‘any complaint’ suggests a broad interpretation that would include an oral complaint.”
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas disagreed (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case). In a dissenting opinion, Scalia argued that the FSLA forbids discrimination against a worker if that worker has filed a complaint with a government agency. He pointed out that every other use of the word “complaint” in the FSLA refers to an official filing with a government entity. Further, he said that the phrase “filing any complaint” appears alongside other activities that involve interaction with a government entity. Because Kasten complained only to his employer and not to a government agency, Scalia said, he was not protected by the law’s anti-retaliation provisions.
The dissents notwithstanding, employers should be aware that this decision protects workers from retaliation for making oral complaints to their employers. Businesses should create and implement policies stating that employees who make such complaints will not suffer retaliation. Since Employment Practices Liability insurance policies cover employers for retaliation claims, insurance companies will expect employers to take steps to make these claims less likely.
Content provided by Transformer Marketing.
Read more
The jingle “hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, special orders don’t upset us” may need to include hold the hamburgers too, as drought-related costs have spiked the prices of hamburgers at favorite fast-food restaurants like In-N-Out Burger.
The San Bernadino Sun reports that, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, this year beef prices are going to rise 5.5 to 6.5 percent, and poultry should increase 3 to 4 percent. Moreover, fruit, vegetables, and eggs will also increase in price by 3 to 4 percent. Significantly, California grows half of the nation’s fruits and vegetables, but because of the record-setting drought, now in its third year, 500,000 acres of farmland remain uncultivated.
“We make every effort to keep our menu prices as low as possible,” claims In-N-Out’s executive vice president of development Carl Van Fleet. “Unfortunately, we have seen some pretty significant cost increases over the last year, and we had to take a small price increase in order to maintain our quality standards.”
All this boils down to higher prices for the consumer and, for those who are already feeling pinched by the lagging economic recovery, choosing what to order is being reconsidered. Giovanni Benitez, who recently had lunch at an In-N-Out Burger in Pasadena said, “I usually always get a combo, but now I might start buying just the hamburger.”
In-N-Out is not the only retail food chain raising prices. Chipotle Mexican Grill and Starbucks are also increasing the prices on their menus. Both stores are increasing the price of items in the 4 to 10 percent range.
Notably, consumers aren’t the only ones being affected by the fallout of increased water costs due to the drought. A U.C. Davis Center for Watershed Sciences study indicates that the drought could cost California’s agricultural and farm communities $1.7 billion and predicts that 14,500 full-time and seasonal workers will lose their jobs.
Consequently, farmers have started to invest in expensive water drilling equipment to locate underground water sources. CBS5 KPIX reports that independent well drilling companies are booming as a result of farmers looking for alternate sources of water.
Steve Arthur, who has been in the drilling-for-water business since 1974, said that he is booked through March of 2015 for drilling new wells. Steve says, “If farmers are not able to drill a well to keep their crops growing, then they are going to have to quit… The effects of that is going to be devastating. They are going to go into the market one day and a gallon of milk is going to cost ten dollars.”
Content provided by http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/07/08/In-N-Out-Burgers-and-Chipotle-Tacos-Prices-Rising-As-Ca-Drought-Persists
Read more
Medical losses paid for California workers compensation claims remained relatively flat from 2012 to 2013, but payments for Medicare reimbursement and medical cost containment programs saw an uptick during that period, according to a new analysis.
California workers comp insurers and self-insured employers paid $5.2 billion in medical losses in 2013, up from $4.8 billion in 2012, the San Francisco-based Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California said Thursday in a statement. Of those losses, payers placed $129 million into Medicare set-aside accounts in 2013, up from $92 million in 2012.
The Medicare Secondary Payer Act requires self-insured employers and insurers to act as primary payers for workers comp and liability claims involving Medicare beneficiaries. The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services advises workers comp payers to set up Medicare set-aside accounts to pay for future medical costs for a beneficiary’s injury.
California comp payers also reimbursed $6 million to Medicare in 2013 for treatment that had been already provided to workers comp claimants for their occupational injuries, up from $3 million for such reimbursements in 2012, according to the WCIRB report.
The bureau noted that insurers and employers paid $446 million in 2013 for medical cost containment programs related to California workers comp claims, up from $414 million in 2012. Costs for such programs have increased every year in California since 2009, the report showed.
Content provided by http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20140627/NEWS08/140629851?tags=|59|338|70|329|74|339|304|92
Read more
Most employers know that they can be held legally liable for sexual harassment occurring in their workplace. However, many may not know that there’s a way to considerably reduce their exposure to liability. The courts have actually laid out a road map of sorts when it comes to reducing employer risk for sexual harassment liability. In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court made it quite clear that laws related to sexual harassment weren’t made in an effort to enable employer vs. employee lawsuits, but rather as a motivation for employers to take reasonable and responsible action in preventing sexual harassment. Employers that have demonstrated this reasonable and responsible action are less likely to be held legally liable for damages. Here are the practices and policies every employer should abide to fulfill their obligation in preventing workplace sexual harassment, thereby reducing their liability risk:
