That would explain some of their decisions, like this one.
Men's Temper Tantrums That Bother Women May Be Sex Discrimination:
Screaming and yelling by men at work may now be sex-based discrimination if women at work find the behavior more intimidating than men do. On September 2, 2005, in E.E.O.C. v. National Education Association, (No. 04-35029), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the “reasonable woman” standard applies to workplace abusive conduct, even if there is no sexual content to the behavior. This decision significantly expands the types of behaviors that may furnish a basis for a claim of discrimination.
Three women working for a labor union, the National Education Association, sued for gender discrimination claiming that the NEA created a sex-based hostile work environment for them through the conduct of an interim assistant executive director who frequently “screamed” at female employees in a loud and profane manner, with little or no provocation, shook his fists at them, stood behind an employee as she worked, and lunged across the table at another. The conduct was not sexual, nor was it marked by sexual language, gender-specific words, sexual stereotypes, or sexual overtures. While there was evidence that the same director raised his voice with men on occasion, and once frightened a male subordinate, male employees seemed to deal with that abuse with banter, and did not express the same fear of the director, did not cry, become panicked or feel physically threatened, avoid contact with the director, call the police, or ultimately resign, as did one woman.
HT to ABP
1 comment:
That is absurd. Employment law precedent is unequivocal about the principle that mere insults and rudeness at work are not subjects that should be adjudicated. The 9th Circuit just opened up a floodgate for b.s. lawsuits that will require a trial over the tone of someone's voice rather than the substance of what was said. I hope this decision goes to the Supreme Court.
Post a Comment