labor lawAdivision of labor law center

Employers in Illinois need to be aware of a new ruling that holds them liable for the conduct of any supervisor towards any employee – especially in regards to sexual harassment.

The Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that an employer is responsible for sexual harassment by an employee who happens to be a supervisor, even if the employee is not in that supervisor’s chain of command.

In other words, it is sexual harassment when a supervisor or manager makes advances towards any employee, not just one who works for the supervisor.

This ruling makes it even more important than ever, that Illinois employers train supervisors and managers to prevent sexual harassment and a hostile work environment.

In Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, the judge ruled on April 16, 2009 that the employer was strictly liable for any manager’s or supervisor’s actions.

Sangamon County is primarily a rural area, about 200 miles southwest of Chicago.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal anti-discrimination law, an individual is not a “supervisor” in a case unless he or she has the authority to affect the victim’s employment status directly.

However, under the Illinois Human Rights Act, no such restriction applies. The employer is liable for the conduct of every supervisor in the organization, towards each and every employee in the organization.

In this case, a female records clerk with the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department filed a complaint of sexual harassment and retaliation against the department. She alleged that a sergeant within the department, who was not her supervisor, was harassing her.

On appeal, the judge ruled that the employer had established a hostile work environment.

Interestingly enough, initially the suit was against both the male supervisor and the employer. The male supervisor, however, was dismissed from the case after settling out of court. This left the employer alone liable for his behavior.

The judge ruled that the employer was “strictly liable” for harassment (more…)

Judges normally make rulings on discrimination suits, rather than cause them. But a Nevada judge is turning that truism on its ear. The judge has been charged with creating a hostile work environment and treating courtroom staff like personal servants. In turn, she alleges that the real problem is discrimination based on her physical condition.

According to testimony in a judiciary hearing, Judge Elizabeth Halverson requires employees – specifically her bailiff and court reporters — to perform personal services for her ranging from foot rubs and back massages to covering her with her “blankie” for naps. Halverson’s former bailiff says the judge’s treatment left him feeling like a houseboy. When he complained, the bailiff was asked, “Do you want to worship me from near or afar?”

  (more…)