Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Office Bully: Are You Liable?
Title VII and similar state statutes penalize employees who harass others based on their status in a protected class. But there are currently no federal or state laws outlawing simple 'bullying.' However, the absence of these statutes does not permit employers to ignore with impunity the 'equal opportunity jerk' in their offices simply because the conduct, while obnoxious, is directed at everyone. In EEOC v. National Education Association ' Alaska ('NEA-Alaska'), 422 F. 2d 840 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit extended Title VII's reach to prohibit a supervisor's unquestionably abusive, but non-gender-related conduct, because the behavior impacted female employees more harshly than their male counterparts. Even before NEA-Alaska, there existed a grassroots movement to outlaw workplace bullying.
Most sensible employers recognize that yelling, screaming and generally abusive behavior is neither an effective nor a preferred management tool. To the contrary, it serves an employer's best interests to have a harmonious work environment because it prevents absenteeism, turn over, low morale and stress-related claims, all of which impact the bottom line. Nevertheless, it seems impractical to hold employers legally accountable for instituting civility in the workplace. Given that many people spend much of their waking hours at work, conflicts and flare-ups inevitably arise. The unfortunate reality is that some managers never outgrow childhood bullying, and their primitive conflict resolution skills stay with them as they move from the sandbox into the conference room. While it may constitute sound business practice to eliminate workplace abuse, such behavior is not susceptible to clear definitions and guidelines, and thus not suitable for government regulation.
The Ninth Circuit's Decision
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?