]]>The Crosswell-Lexington School District last month agreed to implement significant policy changes with respect to its investigation and handling of allegations of sexual harassment and sexual abuse by school district employees. The policy changes include annual training for school district employees, parents and students on these topics.
Parents of an elementary school student in the District filed a Title IX complaint last year with the United States Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights as a result of what they felt was the District's failure to appropriately respond to concerns regarding the conduct of a teacher, who has since left the District. In June, the parents and the District entered into a settlement agreement resolving the claims.
The parents involved in the complaint were represented at Nacht Law in Ann Arbor. "My clients are pleased that the District has agreed to a number of important changes to prevent sexual harassment and abuse of children by those working with kids,". "The safety and protection of children has always been my clients' primary concern, and they feel those goals have been furthered with this settlement."
In addition to training, the District has also agreed to strengthen in a number of specific ways its policies with respect to inappropriate touching of students. The District has also agreed to clearly set forth a policy regarding discipline for district employees who fail to report suspected abuse and has agreed to have an informational meeting for parents and staff at which the new policies will be explained.
The parents who brought the complaint wish to remain anonymous to protect their daughter. However, they want to encourage parents to talk with their children about sexual abuse, harassment and body safety. Additional resources for parents include, "Passing the Trash: A Parent's Guide to Combat Sexual Abuse/Harassment of Their Children in School," by Charles Hobson and The Mama Bear Effect.
]]>"Hostile work environment" is a term of art, which refers to an unlawful employment practice under Title VII that arises because of "discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult[s]" repeatedly directed at an employee on the basis of a protected characteristic. See Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 115-16 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, an employee who complains that an employer is creating a "hostile work environment" engages in Title-VIIprotected activity when the context objectively reveals that the employee is using the expression to complain about repeated abusive discriminatory comments or treatment. A reasonable jury No. 14-3745 Yazdian v. ConMed Endoscopic Tech, Inc. Page 12 could conclude that Yazdian used and intended the phrase "hostile work environment" to reference discriminatory treatment because he was aware of the legal significance of the term and meant it to be a complaint about national-origin or religious discrimination.The Court then went on to address the "reasonable belief" doctrine. Precedent and EEOC guidance clearly establish that an employee is protected under Title VII's anti-retaliation provisions when he/she complains of conduct that the employee reasonably and in good-faith believes is unlawful -- even if the predicate conduct is not discriminatory as a matter of law. The question of whether the employee's belief was reasonable and good-faith contains objective and subjective components and is "necessarily fact-dependent, varying with the circumstances of the case". Moreover, in assessing the reasonableness of the employee's belief, the court must assess the totality of the circumstances "analyzed in light of the employee's training and experience". The Court remanded to the trial court for further consideration on this issue. The Court then rejected Defendant's contention that it was not liable under Title VII where "it had an 'honest belief' in its nondiscriminatory reason for firing" Plaintiff. The Court held that such a defense is available only where the employer makes a reasonably informed and considered decision on particular facts. Here, Defendant did not do so. Among other failings, the employer relied solely on the supervisor's account of events, did not interview Plaintiff or his co-workers or past managers, did not read Plaintiff's rebuttal to the charges against him, and did not allow Plaintiff to file a discrimination complaint. The Court concluded:
Indeed, ConMed appears to have made the decision to terminate Yazdian entirely based on [the supervisor's] description of the phone call with Yazdian. "One conversation [does] not establish sufficient particularized facts about the truth behind [the supervisor's] statements, let alone [his] motive." Shazor, 744 F.3d at 961. Thus, a reasonable jury could find that ConMed's belief in the reason for Yazdian's termination was not honestly held because ConMed did not investigate Yazdian's discrimination complaint and blindly followed Sweatt's recommendation to terminate Yazdian.It's a good opinion for plaintiffs and is worth reading in full.]]>
]]>