Advertisement

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 207–217 | Cite as

Disciplining sexual harassers: What’s fair?

  • David S. Hames
Articles

Abstract

To avoid liability for hostile environment sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and to minimize the negative effects of such conduct on victims’ morale and perhaps their performance, employers must implement remedial measures that are capable of ending the harassment or even preventing it. Determining what constitutes adequate remedial action is difficult, and employers may administer excessively severe disciplinary penalties to ensure legal compliance. But such a response would contravene the tenets of just cause and industrial due process. This investigation examines relevant arbitration decisions to determine how labor arbitrators have balanced these competing interests. That is, it delineates the criteria that should be used to ensure that the disciplinary penalties levied against employees who sexually harass others are both adequate and fair.

Key words

sexual harassment discipline just cause arbitration of sexual harassment cases 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aalberts, R. J., & Hardigree, D W. (1992). Risk management implications of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Employment issues.CPCU Journal, 45(3), 156–165.Google Scholar
  2. Boys Markets, Inc., 88 LA 1304 (Wilmoth, 1988).Google Scholar
  3. Brooms v Regal Tube Co., 50 FEP Cases 1499 (7th. Cir. 1989).Google Scholar
  4. Bundy v Jackson, 24 FEP cases 1155 (1st. Cir. 1981).Google Scholar
  5. Can-Tex Industries, 90 LA 1230 (Shearer, 1988).Google Scholar
  6. Care Inns, Inc., 81 LA 687 (Taylor, 1983).Google Scholar
  7. City of Rochester, 82 LA 217 (Lawson, 1984).Google Scholar
  8. Crow, S. M., & Koen, C. M. (1992). Sexual harassment: New challenges for labor arbitrators.Arbitration Journal, 47(6), 6–18.Google Scholar
  9. DeVry Institute of Technology, 87 LA 1149 (Berman, 1986).Google Scholar
  10. Dow Chemical Co., 95 LA 510 (Sartain, 1990).Google Scholar
  11. Elkouri, F., & Elkouri, E. A. (1985).How Arbitration Works (4th. ed.), Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.Google Scholar
  12. Ellison v Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th. Cir. 1991).Google Scholar
  13. Enterprise Wire Co., 46 LA 359 (Daugherty, 1966).Google Scholar
  14. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1990). Policy guidance on current issues of sexual harassment.Notice N-915-050.Google Scholar
  15. Fisher Foods, Inc., 80 LA 133 (Abrams, 1983).Google Scholar
  16. Flexsteel Industries, 94 LA 497 (Briggs, 1990).Google Scholar
  17. GTE Florida, Inc., 92 LA 1090 (Cohen, 1989).Google Scholar
  18. Henson v City of Dundee, 29 FEP Cases 787 (11th. Cir. 1982).Google Scholar
  19. Heublein, Inc., 88 LA 1292 (Ellmann, 1987).Google Scholar
  20. Hyatt Hotels Palo Alto, 85 LA 11 (Oestreich, 1985).Google Scholar
  21. Katz v Dole, 31 FEP Cases 1521 (4th Cir. 1983).Google Scholar
  22. Kelly, R. M. (1991). The burden of proof in criminal offenses or moral turpitude cases.Arbitration Journal, 46(12), 45–48.Google Scholar
  23. Kidde, Inc., 86 LA 681 (Dunn, 1985).Google Scholar
  24. King Soopers, Inc., 86 LA 255 (Sass, 1985).Google Scholar
  25. Koven, A. M., & Smith, S. L. (1985).Just Cause: The Seven Tests. San Francisco: Coloracre Publications.Google Scholar
  26. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 94 LA 585 (Woolf, 1989).Google Scholar
  27. National Oats Company, Inc., 90-1 ARB 8257 (Smith, 1990).Google Scholar
  28. Newsday, Inc. v Long Island Typographical Union, 135 LRRM 2659 (2nd. Cir. 1990).Google Scholar
  29. Ohio Department of Transportation, 90 AL 783 (Duda, 1988).Google Scholar
  30. Ohiocubco. Inc. 88-2 ARB 8394 (Savage, 1988).Google Scholar
  31. Paroline v Unisys Corp., 50 FEP Cases 306 (4th. Cir. 1989).Google Scholar
  32. Phillip Morris, USA, 94 LA 826 (Baroni, 1990).Google Scholar
  33. Porter Equipment Co., 86 LA 1253 (Liberman, 1986).Google Scholar
  34. RMS Technologies, 94 LA 297 (Nicholas, 1990).Google Scholar
  35. Rockwell International Corp., 85 LA 246 (Feldman, 1985).Google Scholar
  36. Schlage Lock Co., 88 LA 75 (Wyman, 1986).Google Scholar
  37. Sealtest Foods, 89 LA 27 (Goldstein, 1987).Google Scholar
  38. Stroehmann Bakeries, Inc. v Local 776, 969 F.2d. 1436 (3rd. Cir. 1992).Google Scholar
  39. Sugardale Foods, Inc., 86 LA 1017 (Duda, 1986).Google Scholar
  40. Tampa Electric Co., 88 LA 791 (Vause, 1986).Google Scholar
  41. Terpstra, D., & Cook, S. (1985). Complaint characteristics and reported behaviors and consequences associated with formal sexual harassment charges.Personnel Psychology, 38, 559–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Todd Shipyards Corporation, 86-1 ARB 8072 (Koven, 1985).Google Scholar
  43. U.S. Army Missile Command, 84-2 ARB 8422 (Byars, 1984).Google Scholar
  44. U.S. Customs Service, 82-1 ARB 8073 (Kanowitz, 1981).Google Scholar
  45. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1988).Sexual Harassment in the Federal Government: An Update. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  46. Veterans Administration Medical Center, 82 LA 25 (Dallas, 1984).Google Scholar
  47. Waltman v International Paper Co., 50 FEP Cases 179 (5th Cir. 1989).Google Scholar
  48. Washington Scientific Industries, 83 LA 824 (Kapsch, 1984).Google Scholar
  49. West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc., 89-2 ARB 8435 (Duff, 1988).Google Scholar
  50. Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, 94 LA 289 (Boyer, 1990).Google Scholar
  51. Zia Company, 82 LA 640 (Daughton, 1984).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • David S. Hames
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Management, College of Business and EconomicsUniversity of NevadaLas Vegas, Las Vegas

Personalised recommendations