More than Half of Women in Workplace Bullied

More than half of women are bullied at work– often by members of their own sex, according to the largest survey of its kind ever conducted in the United Kingdom.

The gender equality group, Opportunity Now, and PwC, an international  professional services group, commissioned a survey that included interviews with nearly 23,000 women and more than 2,000 men.

The group recently issued a report,  “Project 28-40,”  which urges employers to recognize that “harassment and bullying still occur, despite well-meaning policies. Call it out, deal with perpetuators, and make it simple and straightforward to report.”

Helena Morrissey, chairperson of Opportunity Now, said the key  to improve the workplace for women should be training  excellent managers; this will  achieve “much more than yet another initiative  or programme.”

Fifty-two percent of the women who responded to the survey said they experienced bullying at work within the past three years. The rates were highest for Black British / African /Caribbean women (69%), women with disabilities (71%), bisexual (61%) and lesbian and gay women (55%).

Without being specific, the report states that  the biggest enemy facing women in the office or other workplaces may be other women.  The researchers conducted ten focus groups to gain insight from the survey findings.  “Women often experience bullying by female colleagues and line managers, a point echoed by focus groups participants who thought female bullies felt threatened by potential and ability and so exploited their position or authority to undermine,” said the report.

More than one in four of the women surveyed said they had experienced overbearing supervision or misuse of authority, or were deliberately overloaded with work and subject to constant criticism. One in six of the women experienced exclusion and victimization or were intentionally blocked from promotion or training opportunities.

The researchers conclude that the data shows the extent to which workplaces are “dysfunctional, inefficient and fundamentally unjust” to women.

An additional 12% of women reported experiencing sexual  harassment within the past three years. One in eight said they had been sexually harassed – defined as “unwelcome comments of a sexual nature.”  This includes unwanted physical contact or leering, asking for sexual favors, displaying offensive material such as posters, or sending offensive emails or texts of a sexual nature.

Tap on Wrist for ‘Egregious’ Sexual Harassment

Ct Slashes Jury’s Punitive Award

A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit  this week raises questions about  the way courts calculate damage awards in discrimination cases.

A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court reduced what started out as a $868,750 jury award for punitive damages in a sexual harassment case to $125,000.

The defendant is the American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO),  a Sahuarita, Arizona company owned by Grupo Mexico Corp. that is the third largest copper producer in the US, with estimated earnings in excess of $800 million.

The appeals court agreed that ASARCO employee Angela Aguilar was the victim of “particularly egregious” sexual harassment while working for ASARCO from December 19, 2005 to November 8, 2006.  However, the court said it was required to lower the award because the ratio of punitive damages was excessive compared to the $1 the jury awarded Aguilar for compensatory damages .

Punitive damages are supposed to deter the defendant from engaging in future similar conduct. In other words, the punitive damages should be significant enough to get an employer’s attention so that it will change the illegal practices that led to the damages in the first place.   Will a $125,000 punitive damage award compel a billion dollar corporation to eliminate serious  sexual harassment at the Arizona plant? Not likely.

Statutory cap

The jury’s original punitive damage award was actually hit with a double whammy.

The lower court immediately reduced the $868,750 punitive damage assessment to $300,000 pursuant to a statutory cap placed on such awards by the U.S. Congress.  However, the  lower court refused to further reduce the punitive damage award because of the egregious nature of the harassment suffered by Aguilar.  ASARCO had argued the award should be reduced to $2,500.

The appeals court agreed that ASARCO’s conduct supported  a “very large punitive award” but said the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that punitive damages must bear a “reasonable relationship”  to compensatory damages under the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.  If left to stand, the appeals court said, the ratio of $300,000 in punitive damages to $1 in compensatory damages would be among the highest (if not the highest) ratio since 1996.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the ratio inquiry and we cannot set it aside … [W]e conclude that the highest punitive award supportable under due process is $125,000, in accord with the highest ratio we could locate among discrimination cases.”

One member of the three-judge appellate panel, Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, issued a partial concurrence/dissent, arguing the court should affirm the earlier $300,000 judgment because it fell within the statutory cap on damages in Title VII cases.

The Harassment

Here’s a very abbreviated account of what Aguilar experienced while working  at ASARCO:

  • Her supervisor, a very large man, asked her out every day and refused to train her or help her when she rejected him. When she asked for help, he would press up against her. She was afraid he might rape her. ASARCO’s HR Department and said there was nothing it could do.  She transferred to another unit.
  • There was no functioning women’s restroom in the building so the company rented a “porta-potty” for Aguilar’s use.  It was vandalized repeatedly with pornographic graffiti directed at her. She reported it to HR and the mill supervisor in 2006 but photos showed that visible pornographic graffiti remained on the toilet in 2007.
  • Another supervisor told Aguilar “your ass is mine” and often gave her conflicting orders, snapping his fingers at her, telling her to watch herself, yelling at her and threatening her with termination.  Needless to say, management did nothing when Aguilar complained. ASARCO maintained in the litigation that the supervisor’s behavior was not motivated by sex but instead by his general boorishness toward everyone.

Aguilar finally quit.

The case, State of Arizona v. ASARCO, was initially filed by Arizona on behalf of Aguilar and the state. Aguilar subsequently filed her own lawsuit.

Sexual Harassment and Due Process

Harasser may not be due ‘due process’

Is an elected official who  allegedly “sexually harassed” more than a dozen women entitled to job protection?

That seems to be the ludicrous debate in San Diego right now. A group of supporters  are demanding due process for Mayor Bob Filner, who admits engaging in “intimidating contact” toward women over a period of years.

Filner was scheduled to return to work at City Hall on Monday after undergoing two weeks of “behavioral therapy.”   He didn’t show and is said to be  negotiating the terms of his departure with city leaders.

Normally, one thinks of due process in a criminal context.   For example, criminal defendants are entitled to a hearing on bail and to have  an attorney appointed to represent them under certain circumstances.

Due process is not an automatic right in the employment context, unless the worker is protected by a  contract or a union agreement.  The American concept of “at will” employment holds that a worker can be fired for any reason as long as it is not an illegal reason (e.g., sex or race discrimination).

Filner, 70, has not been charged with a crime –  though maybe he should have been.

If the allegations against him are true, his conduct could  arguably rise to the level of  an  assault and battery or an aggravated assault with respect to at least three of his victims.

According to The Los Angeles Times,  Filner allegedly forcibly kissed two women and groped a female staffer.

America treats sexual harassment as a civil rights violation, rather than a crime.  The victim’s  redress  normally Is limited to filing a lawsuit seeking monetary damages against the harasser.  But many of the behaviors that constitute sexual harassment – especially the part that involves physical contact –  also fall within the realm of criminal statutes.

If  you don’t think that sexual harassment should be a crime – imagine having a person who is  more powerful than you are  forcibly jamming his tongue down your throat or pinning  you against a wall to lick your face.

Attorney Marco Gonzalez  said women who worked for Filner coined the phrases “the Filner headlock” and “the Filner dance” to describe how he isolates women and then makes unwanted advances.

A  recall effort is underway to oust Filner from the Mayor’s office though it is not a sure thing. Recall advocates have 39 days to collect 101,597 signatures from registered city voters.

I suspect the framers of the U.S. Constitution did not have someone like Mayor Bob in mind when they adopted the concept of  due process.

The Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal government so  the pro-Filner folks must be thinking about the  Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War to protect the rights freed slaves.

Ratified in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment declares,”[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (§ 1).

Of course, Filner’s victims also have a due process claim – no  citizen or employee should be subject to “intimidating contact”  by the  Mayor of San Diego.

Judge Whacks EEOC With $4.7 in Fees

Case of Female Truck Drivers Crashes and Burns

It’s easy to forget that EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. started with a 2005 sex discrimination complaint by a female truck driver trainee, Monika Starke, who said she was sexually harassed  by her two “Lead Trainers.”

 Chief Judge Linda R. Reade of the U.S. District Court of Iowa ruled recently that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must pay CRST, one of the nation’s leading transport companies,  $4,694,422.14 in attorney fees and costs stemming from the case.

Judge Reade’s decision  is brutally unsympathetic to the EEOC and the  255 female trainees and drivers who alleged sex discrimination and harassment against CRST.  She appears to be much more concerned about the supposedly unfair burden the litigation placed on CRST. 

The case began with a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC on behalf of Starke and other similarly situated employees.  

 Court records show that Monika Starke alleged that one of the CRST trainers told her “the gear stick is not the penis of my husband, I don’t have to touch the gear stick so often”  and “You got big tits for your size, etc. . . “  She said she told him she was not interested in a sexual relationship with him and called the CRST dispatcher to complain.   “[I] was told that I could not get off the truck until the next day.”  she said.

 Starke’s other “Lead Trainer”  allegedly forced Starke to have sex with him while traveling from July 18, 2005 through August 3, 2005  “in order to get a passing grade.”

 Starke is described as a German who struggles with English. She and her  husband subsequently hired a lawyer and filed for bankruptcy.  They failed  to mention  the CRST lawsuit, prompting CRST to file a motion to prevent Starke from proceeding against CRST on grounds of judicial estoppel –  a doctrine that is meant to protect the integrity of the court.  Judge Reade granted the motion.

 In fact, Judge Reade granted CRST’s pre-trial motions to dismiss all of the complaints of sexual harassment and discrimination filed by the EEOC against CRST. 

  In a dozen cases, Judge Reade said the complaints were not “severe or pervasive” enough.

  In other cases, Judge Reade said CRST did not have legal (as opposed to real)  notice of the harassment and the “Lead Drivers” – who evaluated the performance of the female trainees – did not fall within the court’s technical definition of  supervisor in that they could not fire the trainees.

 Judge Reade dismissed 67 cases because the EEOC did not attempt to conciliate or negotiate with the CRST to settle the cases –  which appears to be a brand  new requirement that could severely limit the  EEOC in the future. Judge Reade conceded that dismissal was a  “severe” sanction for these complainants.

 The EEOC appealed Judge Reade’s dismissal of the case  to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

Appeals Court

In its decision, the  Eigth Circuit agreed that the “Lead Drivers” are not supervisory employees and that CRST was not vicariously liable for sexual harassment/discrimination committed by these employees.  

 The  appellate court generally agreed that claims by female complainants that they were propositioned for sex by male trainers and drivers were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim. The Court said an individual must show “more than a few isolated incidents” to support such a claim.  (It was unclear exactly how many times  a worker must be propositioned for sex to qualify as being harassed.)

 However, the appeals court disagreed with the dismissal of the claims of three female plaintiffs and ordered them reinstated. The court also reversed Judge Reade’s earlier grant of attorney fees to CRST in the amount of $4,560,285.11.

One of the three employees whose case was reinstated was Sherry O’Donnell,  who spent  seven days on the road with a male co-driver who asked her on three to five occasions to drive naked;  refused her request to stop at a truck stop so she could go to the bathroom,  ordering her instead to urinate in the parking lot; and, “in a culminating incident grabbed O’Donnell’s face while she was driving and began screaming that ‘all he wanted was a girlfriend.’ Regarding this third incident, O’Donnell testified that Sears grabbed her face so vigorously that it caused one of her teeth to lacerate her lip.”

Her lead trainer began screaming that ‘all he wanted was a girlfriend.’ He grabbed her face so vigorously that he caused one of her teeth to lacerate her lip.

 The other complainant, Tillie Jones, testified that during a two-week training trip, her Lead Driver, wore only underwear in the cab and on several occasions rubbed the back of her head, despite her repeated requests that he stop. He allegedly referred to Jones as  “his bitch” five or six times and, when Jones’s complained about his slovenly habits, ordered Jones to clean up the truck, declaring “that’s what you’re on the truck for, you’re my bitch. I ain’t your bitch. Shut up and clean it up.”  Like many of CRST’s Lead Drivers, Jones said he routinely urinated in plastic bottles and ziplock bags while in transit, leaving  his urine receptacles about the truck’s cab for her to clean up.  

 The appeals court ruled the EEOC established material issues of fact regarding the harassment that O’Donnell and Jones allegedly suffered. “We hold that the district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that the harassment they suffered was insufficiently severe or pervasive,” the court said.

 Finally, the Court rejected Judge Reade’s finding that the EEOC itself was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel from proceeding on Monika Starke’s behalf, noting the EEOC had not misrepresented any facts to the court.  That brought Ms. Starke case back into the litigation.

 After the appeals court’s decision, CRST agreed to pay Ms. Starke $50,000 to settle Ms. Starke’s case, which most people would interpret as a victory for Ms. Starke. 

 The EEOC decided it could not proceed with respect to O’Donnell complaint, citing the “law of the case.” This presumably refers to Judge Reade’s ruling that the EEOC was required to directly engage in “conciliation” with CRST on each complaint.  

 Which left Ms. Jones as the sole surviving plaintiff.

Even though  the appeals court ruled in the EEOC’s favor with respect to several issues, Judge Reade ruled CRST was the ‘prevailing party” in the case and was entitled to almost $5 million in fees and costs.

 The final award to CRST is actually larger than the earlier award by Judge because Judge Reade included fees and costs expended by CRST related to the appeal.

 Judge Reade was appointed to the federal court in 2002 after being nominated by President George W. Bush.