The legal landscape around workplace harassment claims under Title VII is shifting as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has rescinded key guidance and pending legislation seeks to codify standards. A recent Congressional Research Service report examines how courts interpret Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination to cover harassment, despite the statute not expressly mentioning it. The EEOC's rescission in January of its 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace has left ambiguity about which standards now govern complaints involving gender identity, sexual orientation, and other protected categories.
Title VII does not expressly prohibit harassment, but the Supreme Court has interpreted the law to bar conduct so intolerable it alters the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Courts generally require that harassment be severe or pervasive to qualify as actionable, a bar the Supreme Court established in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. in 1993. Courts acknowledge that bar is high, and circuit courts have applied it inconsistently. The Seventh Circuit allowed a groping case to proceed in Turner v. The Saloon, Ltd. in 2010, while the Eighth Circuit dismissed a similar groping case in LeGrand v. Area Resources in 2005, characterizing it as only three isolated incidents.
To establish employer liability for harassment, a court must consider whether the harasser had supervisory authority, whether the...
It's been a while since I've seen a good perception vs. reality study among American voters, but information veracity rating service NewsGuard just dropped one ahead of the midterm elections and i...