Herman Cain: Sexual Harasser?

November 14, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Since this article was written another woman came forward and claimed that she had an affair that lasted more than a decade with Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain .  After denying it, Cain dropped out of the race on 12/3/11. 

*    *    *

Three women independently say Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain sexually harassed them when they worked for him while he served as President and CEO of the National Restaurant Association between 1996 and 1999.

A fourth woman, Sharon Bialek,  said that during this time period she contacted Cain to ask for a job. Sitting in a parked car with Cain, she says, Cain pushed his hand under her skirt and pushed her head toward his crotch.  “I was very, very surprised and very shocked. I said, ‘What are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend. This isn’t what I came here for.’ Mr. Cain said, ‘You want a job, right?’”

Other women may have come forward but for a vague threat of retribution made last week by Lin Wood, Cain’s defense attorney, who said that any new women who are thinking of coming forward with allegations against the candidate should “think twice” before they do.

So there Cain stood, Saturday night, behind a podium in South Carolina, alongside other Republican candidates, answering questions about foreign policy in a nationally televised debate, as if there is no question but that he possesses the character to occupy the highest office of our land, the President of the United States.

What happens when a worker is subjected to sexual harassment by the CEO of the company? Most are shocked and emotionally traumatized. They fear, justifiably, that they will lose their job or suffer retribution if they do not submit. This is not like innocent flirting or misguided chivalry. Sexual harassment is on a continuum of violence that includes rape and bullying.

Karen Kraushaar, one of the two women who settled sexual harassment claims while they worked at the National Restaurant Association while it was led by Cain, told the New York Times:

When you are being sexually harassed in the workplace, you are extremely vulnerable. You do whatever you can to quickly get yourself into a job someplace safe, and that is what I thought I had achieved when I left.”

Ms. Kraushaar now works as a spokeswoman for one of the three inspectors general at the Treasury Department.

In our criminal justice system an individual is deemed innocent until proven guilty but this is an election and not a criminal trial where an innocent defendant might be imprisoned or executed.

What does it take to raise serious questions about whether a person possesses the good moral character that one would at least hope to see in a future U.S. President?

Is it enough that four women independently accuse the same man of essentially the same type of abusive behavior over a period of years? Suppose one of these women is lying? That would leave three.  Is that enough?

Kraushaar and another woman who worked for Cain at the National Restaurant Association received substantial financial settlements (one got a year’s salary) from the association in exchange for their silence and agreeing to forfeit their right to sue for damages. Generally employers do not shell out tens of thousands of dollars without proof of wrongdoing. Had there been no settlements, it is quite possible that at least one lawsuit would have been filed against Cain and the restaurant association.  Presumably that is what the restaurant association paid to avoid.  What weight should society now place on Cain’s claims of innocence?

If that’s not enough, Cain initially said there were no financial payoffs to the women.

Cain has inferred that the allegations by the women represent a Machiavellian plot dreamed up by Democrats to assassinate his character but isn’t it more likely that the Democrats would prefer Cain, a former head of Godfather Pizza, to former governors Mitch Romney and Rick Perry?

Ultimately, this is less a question of politics than it is a question of character. Cain was a man who had supervisory authority over three women who say he sexually harassed them, and he had the power to hire the fourth. What did he do with that power? When all is said and done, Cain sounds more like a workplace bully than a credible candidate for  U.S. President.

Filed Under: CULTURE, DISPATCHES, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, WORKPLACE BULLYING Tagged With: , Herman Cain, Lin Wood, Mitt Romney, National Restaurant Association, Rick Perry, , Sharon Bialek

Complacent Employer Hit With $95 Million Award

June 13, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Note:  On July 7, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge J.  Michael Reagan granted Aarons’ motion to reduce the compensatory damages award for Alford’s Title VII sexual harassment claim pursuant to the statutory cap from $4 million  to $300,000.00 and the Court vacated the $50 million punitive damages award. Title VII authorizes the award of both compensatory and punitive damages but provides a cap on the total amount of damages recoverable based on employer size. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.   Reagan states in his opinion: “The Court notes that this remittitur results solely from the statutory cap and is not an expression of the Court’s opinion or the reasonableness of the jury verdict as to Count XII.”

East St. Louis, IL –A federal jury has awarded $95 million to a young woman who alleged she was the victim of a campaign of sexual  harassment and assault by a supervisor at  one of 1,800 stores operated by the rent-to-own company, The Aaron’s Inc.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch reported on June 10, 2011 that the jury in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Illinois awarded the woman, Ashley Alford,  $95 million in compensation, including $15 million in compensatory damages and $80 million in punitive damages.  A cap on damages in federal sexual harassment cases will reduce the award to about $41.6 million.  A spokesperson for Aaron’s said the award does not accurately reflect the evidence in the case and Aaron’s plans to appeal.

The Aaron chain’s entire profit in 2010 was $118 million.

Alford’s attorney, David S. Ratner, said the award could be an all-time record for an individual plaintiff in  sexual harassment case.

Alford, who is in her mid-20s, began work as a customer service representative at the store in 2005. She said her supervisor, the store’s then-general manager, Richard Moore, engaged in a year-long escalating campaign of sexual harassment, beginning with crude sexual jokes and  ending with assault.

In the fall of 2006, Alford alleged, Moore sneaked up behind her as she was sitting on the floor of the stockroom and hit her on the head with his penis. In another incident,  Moore  allegedly threw Alford to the ground, lifted her shirt and masturbated over her as he held her down. Moore  is awaiting trial on a criminal charge related to the accusations in St. Clair County Circuit Court.

It appears that Aaron’s was complacent. Alford called a company harassment hotline in May 2006, but an investigator never contacted her.  At some point after the call, the suit claims, she was approached by Moore’s supervisor, who confronted her in front of Moore about his alleged harassment and warned Moore to “watch his back” because of the complaint.

In their verdict, jurors found that Moore had assaulted and battered Alford, and found Aaron’s liable for “negligent supervision,” ‘sexual harassment” and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

In a press release, Chad Strickland, Vice President of Associate Resources for Aaron’s, Inc., said Moore’s alleged acts “are not only completely inconsistent with everything our Company believes in and stands for, but are also far outside the scope of his employment and were never condoned by the Company.”

According to its web site,  “Over 55 million households across North America know and trust the Aaron’s name. Aaron’s, Inc. New York Stock Exchange ticker symbols are AAN and AANA.”

Aaron’s stock was down .04 percent on June 13, 2011.

 

Filed Under: DISPATCHES, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, TITLE VII, WORKPLACE BULLYING, WORKPLACE VIOLENCE Tagged With: , , , , ,

Federal Discrimination Laws

September 30, 2010 by Leave a Comment
Federal Discrimination Laws

Most workplace bullying falls outside the parameters of federal discrimination laws. However, workplace abuse may be the result of illegal discrimination and, if so, you may be able to file a lawsuit seeking damages from your employer. Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, disability, national origin, genetic information, pregnancy, race/color, religion and sex. These laws generally cover employees, applicants for employment, former employees and applicants to, and participants in, training and apprenticeship programs. An employer may include private sector and state and government entities, depending on the law. These laws also make it illegal to retaliate against a person who has complained about an equal employment opportunity violation, or participated in filing a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the applicable statute. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces most of these laws (Go to: www.eeoc.gov). Here is a list of major federal laws relating to employment discrimination: RACE AND COLOR, RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, OR SEX

  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. It is also illegal to harass a person because of that person’s race, color, national origin or sex. Harassment goes beyond simple teasing or an offhand comment; it generally must be severe and frequent, creating an hostile or offensive work environment or resulting in an adverse employment decision (such as being fired or demoted). The law also requires that employers reasonably accommodate applicants’ and employees’ sincerely held religious practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.

PREGNANCY

  • Title VII was amended by The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), which makes it illegal to discrimination against a woman because of pregnancy, childbirth or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth.

EQUAL PAY

  • The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) makes it illegal to pay different wages to men and women if they perform the same work in the same workplace. The jobs must be substantially equal and all forms of compensation are covered, including salary, overtime pay, bonuses, stock options, etc. The EPA protects both men and women.
  • Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) also prohibit compensation discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability. Unlike the EPA, there is no requirement that the jobs be substantially equal.  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 establishes that each paycheck that contains discriminatory compensation is a separate violation regardless of when the discrimination began.

AGE DISCRIMINATION An egregious double standard exists for older workers in federal discrimination law. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act,  29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., makes it “unlawful for an employer . . . to discharge any individual . . . because of such individual’s age. Id. at § 623(a).” With any other type of discrimination lawsuit, it is enough to show that you were the victim of illegal discrimination.  But not so with age discrimination claims. To prevail on an ADEA claim, the U.S. Supreme Court saysyou must establish that “that age was the ‘but-for’ cause of the employer’s adverse action.” Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 129 S.Ct. 2343, 2351 (2009).  In a Title VII discrimination lawsuit – when the grounds are discrimination on the basis of  sex, race, color, national origin or religion – it is enough to show the discrimination was a motivating factor for the adverse job action (i.e. demotion or dismissal). So … In an ADEA claim, if your employer can point to any other reason for termination– and who hasn’t been late or disagreed with their boss – your lawsuit may be thrown out of court by a judge before it even gets to a jury.  This, despite he fact that you can show that you were the victim of blatant and reprehensible age discrimination. Why are older Americans treated like second class citizens?   I suggest you ask your Congressional representative and U.S. Senator.  Personally, I can’t think of one good reason except, perhaps, that big business has better lobbyists. DISABILITY

  • Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA),  prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments. A disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Employers are required to reasonably accommodate the known physical or mental limitation of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or an employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.
  • Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 make it illegal to discriminate against a qualified person with a disability in the federal government.

GENETIC INFORMATION

  • The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which took force on November 21, 2009, makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information. Genetic information includes information about an individual’s genetic tests and the genetic tests of an individual’s family members, as well as information about any disease, disorder or condition of an individual’s family members.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

  • The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission promulgated guidelines (Sec. 1604.11) pursuant to the adoption of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that make sexual harassment illegal. This includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:  made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment; submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting the individual, or; such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. With respect to fellow employees, an employer is responsible for acts of sexual harassment in the workplace where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) know or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate appropriate corrective action.

CITIZENSHIP STATUS AND NATIONAL ORIGIN

  • Claims of discrimination based on citizenship status and national origin are covered both by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).
  • The IRCA states that employers cannot discriminate because of national origin against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and authorized aliens. Also, employers cannot discriminate on the basis of citizenship status against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and the following classes of aliens with work authorization: permanent residents, temporary residents (that is, individuals who have gone through the legalization program), refugees, and asylumees. For example, citizenship verification must be obtained from all employees, not just “ethnic” looking employees.The IRCA is implemented by the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Office of the Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices.
  • Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin. It bars discrimination against an individual because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group. This law is administered by the EEOC.
Filed Under: AGE DISCRIMINATION, EEOC, FEDERAL, PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, TITLE VII Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

STATE HARASSMENT/DISCRIMINATION LAWS

September 30, 2010 by Leave a Comment
  • California passed a general anti-harassment law in 2014, AB 1825, that went into effect on January 1, 2015. It requires that supervisors in all firms with 50 or more employees receive training in “abusive conduct.” This requirement was added to an existing law requiring employers to provide two hours of sexual harassment training  to supervisors within the first six months of the employee’s assumption of a supervisory role. The new law defines “abusive conduct” as:

  . . . conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests.  [It] may include repeated infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets, verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.”

Malice is conduct that is “intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.”

The new law states that a “single act shall not constitute abusive conduct, unless especially severe or egregious.”

  • Tennessee approved a “Healthy Workplace Act” in 2014 that is designed to curb verbal abuse at work by making public-sector employers immune to bullying-related lawsuits if they adopt a policy that complies with the law. The law applies only to public-sector employers, and administrators aren’t required to follow guidelines. If they do, however  they receive immunity from potential lawsuits.
  • Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed HB 216 into law in 2014 to mandate Abusive Conduct training for public sector The law requires state agencies to train supervisors and employees about how to prevent abusive conduct. The law takes effect July 1, 2015. Utah is the second state to pass a training-only law to begin to address abusive conduct in the workplace.

Every state has laws that protect employees from unlawful discrimination. These laws may be more expansive than similar federal laws, encompassing more employers and additional classes of victims.  They may offer protection that is  not available under federal law. For example, the U.S. Congress has yet to adopt legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but almost half of the states and the District of Columbia have adopted such laws.  Thus, a victim of harassment based on sexual orientation may be able to file a lawsuit in state court that would not be possible in federal court.  State  discrimination laws may offer a wider range of damages, especially with claims related to age discrimination.  Many attorneys prefer to bring suit in state courts to avoid federal courts, which tend to be hostile to employment law claims.  You should check the laws in your state.

Filed Under: SEXUAL HARASSMENT, STATE DISCRIM. LAWS Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,