Section+5

**__ LAWS __**
 * Work Place Harassment** The victim needs to show that it was very clearly unavoidable and not some petty office strife or unwelcome flirtations. Rather, in order to be actionable, the sexual harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive work environment. A case of sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment theory requires proof of the following elements: the employee belonged to a protected group (however, this does not mean that men cannot file sexual harassment claims), the employee experienced unwelcome sexual harassment, the harassment complained about was based on sex or gender, the harassment was severe and persistent to affect and alter the term of employment or performance of the victim, and the employer knew of or should have known of the harassment and failed to take action to remedy the situation.

    media type="youtube" key="Kht9LDZo5b8" height="344" width="425"
 * Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment** Under common law theory in many states, including Texas, an employer’s senior management or vice principals (owners and high level managers or executives) are the equivalent of the employer for liability purposes. The courts reason that a corporate employer can act only through its agents, and in the case of vice principals, an agency relationship is presumed. In general, this means owners and high level managers or executives act for the company, and the company will be held liable for their actions.
 * Sexual Harassment and Technology** E-mail harassment cases are on the rise and involve situations in which an employee sues his or her employer for sexual harassment based, in part, on E-mail messages the employee received and the employer failed to monitor. Reported cases of E-mail harassment are difficult to find and rarely go to trial because they usually settle once the investigator finds the incriminating E-mail. Typically, reported cases also involve invasion of privacy issues arising out of the employer disciplining an employee for improper, potentially harassing use of E-mail.
 * Sexual Harassment Retaliation** Both [|Title VII]  and the TCHRA prohibit retaliation against an employee complaining of discrimination or harassment based on sex or other grounds. Claims of retaliation often complicate the issues raised in sexual harassment litigation by requiring the plaintiff to prove additional facts to satisfy the elements of a retaliatory discharge claim. To state a retaliation claim, the employee must show that (i) he or she engaged in an activity protected by Title VII (or the [|TCHRA] ); (ii) an adverse employment action followed; and (iii) a causal connection exists between the activity and the adverse action. An adverse action by an employer must be a definitive employment decision, such as hiring, firing, promoting, granting leave, or compensating, basically it is a significant change in employment status.
 * Sexual Favoritism Sexual Harassment** The EEOC Guidelines provide that an employee who is a third-party bystander to a supervisor’s favoritism of another employee may have a cause of action for sexual harassment. The Guidelines state that sexual favoritism may be unlawful where equally qualified employees are denied job benefits because they have not submitted (or been asked to submit) to the sexual requests of a supervisor. However, the courts can have very strict rulings on when Title VII is violated in a Sexual Favoritism case because the favoritism must be based on gender and no other parameters.

Home