Bennett & Belfort P.C.
The B&B Docket Blog
Developments in the Dynamic World
of Business and Employment Law

Archive for the ‘Sexual Harassment’ Category

BENNETT AND BELFORT, P.C. PARTNER, TODD BENNETT, QUOTED IN THE BOSTON BUSINESS JOURNAL

Posted on: December 8th, 2017 by admin


tb-124x150Bennett and Belfort, P.C. partner, Todd Bennett, was quoted in the November 29, 2017 Boston Business Journal article entitled, “Biotech’s #MeToo Moment.” https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2017/11/29/biotech-s-metoo-moment-lawyers-say-bias-harassment.html.  The article is about the recent uptick in claims of sexual harassment and gender discrimination being brought by female employees in the biotech industry.  Attorney Bennett stated that in his experience, there remains an “inaccurate stereotype among leadership, which is predominantly male, that women lack the scientific acumen to either perform the necessary functions of their jobs or to be promoted to a leadership role,” which is oftentimes used as a “pretext for the failure to promote or hire.”

In light of the current publicity concerning widespread sexual harassment by prominent and powerful figures in the entertainment and media industries, we believe that more and more women are realizing not only that it is permissible and personally empowering to  speak out when subjected to sexual harassment and discrimination at their jobs, but that these complaints may very well give others the courage to come forward and may prevent future employees from suffering the severe emotional distress caused by such unacceptable and unlawful behavior.

BENNETT & BELFORT WELCOMES ATTORNEY CRAIG LEVEY TO FIRM

Posted on: June 13th, 2016 by admin

 

 

Levey Craig (2)

Bennett & Belfort, P.C. is pleased to announce that Attorney Craig Levey has joined the firm.  Mr. Levey focuses his practice on employment and business matters, representing both individuals and companies.  He litigates claims of discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and wage & hour disputes, as well as partnership and fiduciary duty issues.  Mr. Levey also drafts, reviews, and negotiates non-competition, non-solicitation, and severance agreements, and routinely counsels companies on all facets of the employer-employee relationship, including the drafting and implementation of company policies, procedures, and employee handbooks.

Mr. Levey has experience in a wide variety of cases in Federal, Superior, and District courts, and before administrative tribunals, including the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Department of Unemployment Assistance, and the Division of Administrative Law Appeals.

Commenting on the move, Mr. Levey said, “Bennett & Belfort offers a creative and collaborative environment to work, which is the perfect platform for me to grow my practice.  I am excited to join such a strong and determined team of attorneys, and I look forward to continuing the firm’s tradition of delivering top-notch service to its clients.”

Mr. Levey is a former associate attorney at Looney & Grossman, LLP and Davis, Malm & D’Agostine, P.C. in Boston.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT – FACTS YOU MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN

Posted on: April 1st, 2015 by admin

MCADBelow are some facts about sexual harassment claims in Massachusetts that you may not have known.  There are many other important details relating to sexual harassment claims that are not discussed in this blog. We will update future blogs with additional information regarding sexual harassment law.  If you have questions about sexual harassment in Massachusetts, please contact our office (617.577.8800).

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates both Massachusetts law (General Laws, Chapter 151B and General Laws, Chapter 214, Section 1C) and federal laws (Title VII of the Civil Rights -Act of 1964).

 

THERE ARE 2 TYPES OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE

1. Quid pro quo” harassment

When an employee with authority or control over the terms and conditions of another employee’s work offers him/her a work benefit or advantage in exchange for sexual favors or gratification, this is quid pro quo harassment.  Also, if an employee is denied a work benefit or advantage due to his or her refusal to provide sexual favors, or as a result of rejecting requests for sexual favors, this is quid pro quo sexual harassment.  For example, quid pro quo harassment may exist if an employee declines to provide sexual favors to his or her boss and as a result, suffers termination; demotion; denial of a promotion; transfer; reduced or less preferential hours or scheduling; poor performance reviews; or decreased compensation.

2.  A “Hostile Work Environment” claimant must show that:

he or she was subjected to conduct of a sexual nature;

the conduct of a sexual nature was unwelcome;

the conduct of a sexual nature had the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating or sexually offensive work environment; and

the conduct unreasonably interfered with the claimant’s work performance or altered the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment.

While these cases are fact specific, any of the following types of conduct can serve as the basis for a potential hostile work environment sexual harassment claim (this list is not exhaustive): inappropriate touching; sexual jokes, gossip, sexual conduct or comments; requests for sex; displaying sexually suggestive pictures and objects; and leering, whistling, or making sexual gestures.  Keep in mind that other civil claims and criminal sanctions might be available remedies as well, including, but not limited to, assault and battery, interference with contractual relations, and retaliation.  Therefore, a careful review of these types of cases is recommended.

NOTE:  If the harasser is NOT in a supervisory role, the victim – in most cases – is expected to notify the Human Resources Department or a managerial employee of the employer, so that the employer is on notice of the misconduct and has an opportunity to take corrective action.

If the harasser is in a supervisory role, the employer is considered “strictly liable” for the conduct, whether or not the employer is aware of the sexual harassment. 

 

NOT EVERY INAPPROPRIATE COMMENT GIVES RISE TO A SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM

Careful consideration must be given to an analysis of whether conduct in a particular situation is sexually charged (and not just a stray remark) or sufficiently severe and pervasive at the workplace to constitute actionable sexual harassment.

A single “off color” or sexually charged action or comment may or may not be sexual harassment.  In order to prove a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim, the claimant must show that the conduct was either severe or pervasive, or both.  While a single instance of improper lewd touching is usually severe enough to constitute a hostile work environment claim, generally speaking—even where it is inappropriate or sexually charged—a single lewd or inappropriate comment might not constitute a hostile work environment claim.  This is very fact specific, and each circumstance (including the background information) must be evaluated on a case by case basis.

 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT MATTERS ARE NOT ALWAYS MALE HARASSER AND FEMALE VICTIM

Not all sexual harassment cases involve a male harasser and a female victim.  The victim or harasser may be male or female, and same sex sexual harassment claims (female harasser and female victim, male harasser and male victim, etc.) appear to be on the rise.

 

AN EMPLOYER MAY BE LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THIRD PARTIES

An employer may be held liable for sexual harassment committed by non-employee third parties when the employer knew or should have known about the conduct and failed to take prompt, effective and reasonable remedial action.  Generally, the greater the employer’s ability to control the non-employee’s conduct, the more likely it will be found liable for the unlawful harassment.

 

MOST SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS MUST BE FILED WITHIN 300 DAYS

Sexual harassment claims pursuant to General Laws, Chapter 151B must be filed at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and/or the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) within 300 days of the adverse/discriminatory conduct.  There are exceptions, including situations in which the conduct complained about was of a continuing nature.

If a claimant files a claim after the applicable statute of limitations, his or her claim will be forever time barred. Time is of the essence with any discrimination claim.

 

NOT ALWAYS EMPLOYMENT RELATED

Most sexual harassment allegations arise from an employer-employee relationship.  However, sexual harassment is also prohibited in places of public accommodation,educational facilities,and housing.

We will update future blogs with additional information regarding sexual harassment law.  Please do not hesitate to contact us at 617.577.8800 if you have any questions.

Attorney Belfort Invited Panelist in MCLE’s Top 25 Employment Cases Seminar

Posted on: March 17th, 2015 by admin

2013 David B photo On February 25, 2015, Bennett & Belfort P.C. partner David E. Belfort served as a panelist for an MCLE seminar entitled “Top 25 Keys Cases Every Employment Litigator & Counselor Must Know.” Joining Attorney Belfort on the panel were his esteemed colleagues Attorneys Andrea C. Kramer (Chair) of Hirsch Roberts Weinstein LLP and Nina J. Kimball of Kimball Brousseau LLP.

The panelists reviewed 25 key cases in Massachusetts employment law and highlighted issues central to effective employment litigation in the Commonwealth, including a detailed discussion of foundational and developing case law in the field.  Attorney Belfort was charged with discussing cases relating to discrimination damages and wage and hour disputes.  There was a rigorous discussion as to a number of other relevant topics, including:  proving liability in discrimination cases; retaliation and whistleblower protections; the continuing violation doctrine and Cat’s Paw Theory; and disability and reasonable accommodation law. 

There was a lively dialogue regarding associational discrimination: an evolving and active area of employment law in which the individual experiencing discrimination is not a member of a protected class, but is related to (or associated with) someone who is.  The panelists also discussed the interesting procedural history and standards of appellate review of these central cases – often involving the interplay between various tribunals such as the Supreme Judicial Court’s review of lower Courts’ decisions or the Trial Court’s review of MCAD (Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination) decisions.  One theme was the fight among litigants as to what standard of review governed each circumstance.  While in some cases the Courts conduct a “de novo” review (completely new trial on the merits) in others there is only a limited 30A administrative review available.  This 30A process is conducted without a jury, is a far more deferential standard to the underlying Agency decision, and considers only facts already in the record.

Here is a list, by general topic, of the top 25 Massachusetts cases that were covered in the Seminar:

 

Discrimination Law – General

1.         Abramian v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 432 Mass. 107 (2000)

2.         Lipchitz v. Raytheon Co., 434 Mass. 493 (2001)

3.         College-Town Div. of Interco v. MCAD, 400 Mass. 156 (1987)

4.         Thomas O’Connor Constructors, Inc. v. MCAD, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 549 (2008)

5.         Mole v. Univ. of Massachusetts, 442 Mass. 582 (2004)

6.         King v. City of Boston, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 460 (2008)

7.         GTE Products Corp. v. Stewart, 421 Mass. 22 (1995)

8.         Sarni Original Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Cooke, 388 Mass. 611 (1983)

9.         Haddad v. Wal-Mart, 455 Mass. 91 (2009)

10.       Stonehill Coll. v. MCAD, 441 Mass. 549 (2004)

11.       City of Boston v. MCAD, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 234 (1995)

12.       Massachusetts Elec. Co. v. MCAD, 375 Mass. 160 (1978)

13.       Flagg v. AliMed, Inc., 466 Mass. 23 (2013)

 

Disability Accommodation, Interactive Dialogue, and Leaves of Absence

14.       Russell v. Cooley Dickinson Hosp., Inc., 437 Mass. 443 (2002)

 

Harassment

15.       Muzzy v. Cahillane Motors, Inc., 434 Mass. 409 (2001)

16.       Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 434 Mass. 521 (2001)

 

Wage & Hour Law

17.       Okerman v. VA Software, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 771 (2007)

18.       Boston Police Patrolmen’s Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Boston, 435 Mass. 718 (2002)

19.       Camara v. Attorney General, 458 Mass. 756 (2011)

20.       Smith v. Winter Place LLP, 447 Mass. 363 (2006)

21.       Crocker v. Townsend Oil Co., 464 Mass. 1 (2012)

22.       Depianti v. Jan–Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., 465 Mass. 607 (2013)

23.       Lipsitt v. Plaud, 466 Mass. 240 (2013)

 

Common Law Claims

24.       Hobson v. McLean Hosp. Corp., 402 Mass. 413 (1988)

25.       Fortune v. National Cash Register Co., 373 Mass. 96 (1977)

 

The webcast of this program can be accessed through the MCLE website (http://www.mcle.org/product/catalog/code/2150165WBA).

MCLE Top 25