Posts tagged with "Greenwich"

What is a Constructive Discharge?

Leave a reply
Employment Resignation

Hopefully, you have never been fired – that is a discharge or termination.  Sometimes, however, an employee has no reasonable alternative to quitting – that is a constructive discharge.  The involuntary nature of the employee’s “quit” may enable him or her to claim the constructive discharge as an adverse employment action so as to maintain a claim for employment discrimination.  An employee’s reasonable decision to resign because of unendurable working conditions is, for remedial purposes, equated to a formal discharge.

A constructive discharge occurs when an employer indirectly, but deliberately, makes an employee’s working conditions so intolerable that the employee is forced involuntarily to resign.  The key points of inquiry are the employer’s intentional conduct and the intolerable level of the employee’s working conditions.  The standard for evaluation is objective – how would a reasonable employee behave in the particular employee’s shoes?  Subjective feelings as to the intolerable nature of the employee’s position cannot support a finding of constructive discharge.

Establishing Constructive Discharge

In assessing a claim of constructive discharge, individual factors, standing alone, may be insufficient to carry the day.  For this reason, the pertinent conditions are aggregated since a reasonable person encounters life’s circumstances cumulatively rather than individually.  Some routine workplace events – e.g. a poor performance appraisal, lack of training, or increased job demands – are to be expected and do not support an inference that a reasonable person would be “compelled” to resign.  The standard for constructive discharge goes beyond difficult or unpleasant working conditions.

As is so often the case in employment law, the presence of a constructive discharge depends upon the circumstances of the particular employee involved.  If you feel that your employer deliberately made your work environment intolerable and that you were forced to quit, you should confer with a seasoned employment law litigator to determine your rights.

The employment law attorneys in the Westport, Connecticut office of Maya Murphy, P.C. have extensive experience in the negotiation and litigation of all sorts of employment-related disputes and assist clients from Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan, Darien, Norwalk, Westport and Fairfield in resolving such issues. If you have any questions regarding constructive discharge or other matters of employment law, please do not hesitate to contact Joseph Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com to schedule a free initial consultation.

A Summary of Sexual Harassment Workplace Policies in Connecticut

Leave a reply

Unfortunately, many instances of sexual harassment in the workplace go unreported, due either to a fear of retaliation or uncertainty as to whether the conduct constituted sexual harassment.  Whatever the case, no employee should feel demeaned in any way while on the job.  The following provides an overview of the various laws and regulations concerning sexual harassment in Connecticut, and the various steps employers must take to ensure compliance with the law.

First and foremost, even before consulting an attorney, anyone with questions or concerns relating to human rights or discrimination issues in Connecticut should consult Connecticut’s Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), which states that its mission “is to eliminate discrimination through civil and human rights law enforcement and to establish equal opportunity and justice for all persons within the state through advocacy and education.”  The site provides valuable resources and links.  With regard to sexual harassment, the site contains a step-by-step guide on what to do if you feel you have been the victim of sexual harassment.

The Commission gets its authority from Connecticut General Statute § 46a-54, which grants the Commission the authority to “require an employer having three or more employees to post in a prominent and accessible location information concerning the illegality of sexual harassment and remedies available to victims of sexual harassment,” and second, “to require an employer having fifty or more employees to provide two hours of training and education to all supervisory employees [ . . . ].”  The statute further provides that the training and education “shall include information concerning the federal and state statutory provisions concerning sexual harassment and remedies available to victims of sexual harassment.”

What is sexual harassment?

By way of reference, sexual harassment refers to “any unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors or any conduct of a sexual nature.”

Employers with 3+ Employees

The information that is required of an employer having three or more employees includes, but is not limited to:

  • The statutory definition of sexual harassment and examples of different types of sexual harassment;
  • Notice that sexual harassment is prohibited by the State of Connecticut’s Discriminatory Employment Practices Law and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act;
  • The remedies available to a victim of sexual harassment, which can include but are not limited to:
    • Cease and desist orders;
    • Back pay;
    • Compensatory damages; and
    • Hiring, promotion or reinstatement;
  • Notice that the harasser may be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties;
  • The contact information for the CHRO;
  • A statement that Connecticut law requires that a formal written complaint be filed with the Commission within 180 days of the date when the alleged harassment occurred;
  • A large bold-faced notice stating, “Sexual Harassment is Illegal.”
Employers with 50+ Employees

An employer with fifty or more employees, in addition to the aforementioned requirements, must provide two hours of specialized sexual harassment training, which “shall be conducted in a classroom-like setting, using clear and understandable language and in a format that allows participants to ask questions and receive answers.”  The statute provides a long list of the specific topics that an employer can and should include in the training.

It is the hope that the above provides a concise, easy to understand the policies that an employer must abide by when it comes to sexual harassment.  If you feel that you have been the victim of sexual harassment, or even if you are not sure, you should consult with an attorney experienced in employment law.  The attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. regularly represent employees throughout the Fairfield County and New York City regions, and are ready to advocate on your behalf.  If you have questions or want to schedule a consultation, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Court Enforces Non-Compete Clause Against Real Estate Agent

Leave a reply
Century 21 Access America v. McGregor-Mclean, 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3239

Century 21 Access America is a national real estate company that employed Ms. Tori McGregor-Mclean as a real estate agent in its Bridgeport, CT office from July 2003 to June 16, 2004.  Her employment contract, dated July 7, 2003, contained a non-compete clause that prohibited her for a two-year period following termination from engaging in competing business activities within a fifteen-mile radius of 3850 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT.  Ms. McGregor-Mclean voluntarily terminated her employment on June 16, 2004 and began to work for Buyer’s Capitol Real Estate, a company located outside of the fifteen-mile radius in Stamford, CT.

Century 21 did not have a problem with her new employment because the office was located outside of the prohibited area but issues arose when Ms. McGregor-Mclean began accepting listings within the fifteen-mile radius.  Century 21 sued Ms. McGregor-Mclean in Connecticut state court for violation of the non-compete clause and requested that the court issue an injunction to enforce the agreement.

The Court’s Decision

The court found that Ms. McGregor-Mclean’s activities with her new real estate agency were in fact violations of the non-compete agreement and it ordered that the provisions be enforced.  The plain language of the non-compete clause stipulated that Ms. McGregor-Mclean was prohibited from carrying out any direct or indirect competing business activities within the defined fifteen-mile radius.  She was in breach of the agreement because she accepted five listings within the prohibited area – it is inconsequential as a matter of law that her office was located outside of the fifteen-mile radius.

Under the agreement, she was prohibited from having a physical business presence and transacting individual deals within the defined area.  The court identified the unlawful breaches of the non-compete clause, concluded that the agreement was valid and reasonable, and issued an injunction to enjoin Ms. McGregor-Mclean from further violations of the covenant not to compete.

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.  If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Enforceability of Non-Solicitation Agreement for Potential Clients of Former Employer

Leave a reply
Webster Financial Corporation v. McDonald, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 169

USI Insurance Services of Connecticut, Inc., formerly Webster Insurance, Inc., employed Mr. William McDonald as a senior vice president at its Westport, CT office.  The company had Mr. McDonald sign an employment agreement dated February 11, 2003 that contained non-compete and non-solicitation clauses in the event of his termination.  The agreement prohibited Mr. McDonald from soliciting any of USI’s contacts that had been clients or potential clients in the twelve months prior to his termination and established a geographical limit of twenty-five miles within USI’s Westport office.

As for the time limitation, the covenant was applicable for the great period of two years following Mr. McDonald’s termination or as long as he received benefits from a deferred compensation plan.  Mr. McDonald resigned on September 21, 2007 and began to work at Shoff Darby, Inc., an industry competitor well within the prohibited twenty-five mile radius of USI’s Westport office.  At his new firm, Mr. McDonald proceeded to solicit and sell insurance products to USI’s former and current clients.  Additionally, he contacted several USI employees and urged them to leave the company to seek employment with Shoff Darby.

Enforcing the Agreement 

USI sued Mr. McDonald and asked the court to enforce the provisions of the restrictive covenant.  Mr. McDonald presented two defenses to the court, arguing that the agreement was overly broad and therefore unenforceable.  He claimed that the prohibition of potential clients and the potential unlimited duration made the non-compete agreement unreasonable and unenforceable.

USI asserted the validity of the agreement and emphasized to the court that it contained a “blue pencil” provision that authorized the court to amend the time and/or geographical limitation in order to comply with Connecticut law.  Mr. McDonald countered this argument stating that this legal procedure would require the court to essentially rewrite the non-compete contract, an act forbidden under Connecticut law.

The Court’s Decision

The court found in favor of USI with regard to the issue of the agreement’s enforceability with its holding stating, “taking the covenant as whole, nothing on the face of the contract renders the covenant unenforceable as a matter of law”.  While deliberating about the claim that the prohibition on potential clients was unreasonable, the court stated that there is no direction or precedent from the Connecticut Appellate Courts and that the Superior Courts throughout the state were divided on the issue.

This court took the approach used in Cuna Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Butler (2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1623) that such limitations on potential clients are reasonable so long as they are “readily identifiable and narrowly defined”.  The court concluded that the potentially unlimited applicable duration of the agreement was not “per se unreasonable” because the agreement as a whole contained several other definitive restrictions such as the twenty-five mile radius from the Westport office and the limited group of clients for the anti-solicitation clause.

If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Gender Wage Gap in Connecticut

Leave a reply

The Gender Wage Gap Task Force in Connecticut issued its report last month with both findings and recommendations on continued disparities between what men and women, on average, earn. In doing so, it recognized that there are multiple factors that are responsible for the gap in its view. It paints a far more complicated picture of the wage gap than some politicians suggest. As it detailed:

Understanding this inequity is not a simple matter. Many factors contribute to the overall wage gap including education and skills, experience, union membership, training, performance, hours worked and the careers women and men choose. However, even after these factors are controlled for, an estimated wage gap of 5-10% remains. The task force has identified six key contributors to the gender wage gap in Connecticut: unconscious bias, occupational segregation, lower starting salaries and positions for women, women’s slower career advancement, the existence of a glass ceiling and a lack of support for working families.

Reasons for the Wage Disparity

Mara Lee, from the Hartford Courant, does a nice job recapping some of the key findings. Her take?

The report says that researchers have determined there are two reasons for that disparity: women don’t negotiate salary offers as often as men, and there may be subtle biases among bosses, even ones they don’t realize they have.

The report gives an example of a study of students graduating from Carnegie Mellon with master’s degrees, which found that 57 percent of men negotiated salary offers and 7 percent of women did. The men’s salaries were 7.6 percent higher than the women. And that $4,000 was almost the exact amount more that people who negotiated were paid compared to those who didn’t.

What might we see as a result of the report?

There are a number of recommendations, but surprisingly few of them touch on changes to the legal system.

First, it suggests that Connecticut “align” its Family Medical Leave Act with the federal Family Medical Leave Act by expanding it to include companies with 50 or more employees.

If the General Assembly does take that up, legislators should consider narrowing the differences between the two statutes. For example, Connecticut gives employees 16 weeks of leave over a 24 month period, instead of the federal 12 weeks of leave every twelve months, which can be confusing at times and leads to strange results that allow employees to get 16 weeks of leave the first year and then another 12 weeks during the second year — far more than just the 16 weeks first contemplated under Connecticut law.

The report also recommends supporting paid leave programs, like those in New Jersey and California. Connecticut is currently studying various proposals.

Employers in Connecticut should remain cognizant of both the issues that this report raises and the legislative developments that may arise from it as a result.

–

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, place contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Contents provided by: Daniel Schwartz of http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/

Discrimination Against Spanish-Speaking Worker

Leave a reply

A former saleswoman for the Baccarat store on Madison Avenue was awarded $500,000 by a Federal jury after she testified that the company president complained about her Puerto Rican accent, barred her from speaking Spanish to a co-worker, and finally dismissed her from her job selling crystal and china because of her ethnic origins. Although the saleswoman, Erma Rivera, now 59, had contended that Baccarat Inc. was seeking a more youthful workforce, the jury in Federal District Court in Manhattan did not find that age discrimination played a role in her dismissal in July 1995.

Losing the job was devastating to Ms. Rivera, who joined Baccarat in October 1986 after selling Haviland porcelain for 15 years, said her lawyer, Joseph C. Maya. “She had spent 25 years of her life teaching newlyweds how to set a place setting and about fine china,” he said. “She loved the company.”

Ms. Rivera, who lives in Queens and is now employed by a department store bridal registry on Long Island, a job she struggled to find after losing her position at Baccarat, according to Mr. Maya – was unwilling to be interviewed. Her current job pays her about $21,000 a year, much less than she received at Baccarat, where her salary was in the mid-$50,000 range, her lawyer said.

Case Details

Ms. Riviera’s troubles at Baccarat did not begin until Mr. Negre was installed, her lawyer said. She testified that Mr. Negre once called her into his office and told her that he did not like her accent, Mr. Maya said.  He said that testimony at the weeklong trial showed that Ms. Rivera, the mother of five children, had an exemplary record at the store and had never prompted a complaint from a customer in her nine years on the sales force.

In a letter introduced into evidence, a former store manager, J.D. Watts, described her as “the top sales person during my three-year tenure at Baccarat.” “She is fluent in Spanish and is extremely effective when dealing with South American and other Spanish-speaking customers,” Mr. Watts wrote.

Baccarat’s lawyer, Jeffrey H. Daichman, said that Ms. Rivera was one of five employees fired at roughly the same time because the company’s new president, Jean-Luc Negre, wanted to improve the store’s performance and introduce “a more positive dynamic and energetic attitude toward dealing with customers.” Mr. Negre also made the decision to make the store more inviting by moving it a half-block to a corner site at 59th Street and Madison Avenue, Mr. Daichman said.

After being named president of the company in 1999, Mr. Negre made seven visits to the store and found the sales force sitting at desks and slow to greet customers, Mr. Daichman said. Ms. Rivera “was not singled out” and was not criticized for speaking with an accent.

National Origin Discrimination

Mr. Daichman acknowledged that Ms. Rivera was ordered to refrain from speaking Spanish to a co-worker in the presence of customers. He said the policy was instituted after a customer complained. “It’s just a matter of common sense,” he said. “If the customer is not Spanish-speaking, don’t talk another language. That’s rude.”
There was no evidence other than her own testimony about national origin discrimination. “Baccarat has a diverse sales force that includes a Brazilian employee who speaks Spanish as well as Portuguese and three sales people 50 or older,” he said.

Mr. Daichman said the company would ask the Federal magistrate who presided over the case, James C. Francis, to set aside the verdict or order a new trial. The jury found that the company discriminated against Ms. Rivera and awarded her $125,000 in compensatory damages and $375,000 in punitive damages.

The New York Times Metro Section
By Terry Pristin – February 10, 1998

Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement to Protect Software Company’s Confidential Information

Leave a reply
Weseley Software Development Corporation v. Burdette, 977 F. Supp. 137

Mr. Wesley Burdette worked for Weseley Development Corporation first as a Logistics Analyst and then as a Senior Logistics Analyst from May 1993 to September 16, 1996.  Weseley was a software development company based in Shelton, Connecticut whose focus product was a transportation and logistics management program referred to as TRACS (Tactical Routing and Consolidation System).  Mr. Burdette played a significant role in the development and testing of TRACS versions 3.0 and 3.1.  He worked with “customers and potential customers to evaluate, develop, tailor, and implement Weseley’s products” during his approximately three years of employment.

He gave Weseley his two weeks notice on August 29, 1996 and planned to switch companies to work for Manugistics for the marketing and sales of its product titled MTP.  Management reminded Mr. Burdette of the non-compete clause in his employment agreement that he had signed.

The most important covenants that he signed in conjunction with his employment contract were those not to compete or disclose confidential information.  The agreement was signed on January 14, 1995 after Mr. Burdette was allowed time to consult with an attorney regarding any and all of the agreement’s provisions.  The non-compete clause stipulated that he could not work for a competitor for a period of six months following his termination with Weseley or disclose confidential information for an indefinite period of time.

The company sued Mr. Burdette to enforce the non-compete and asked the court to enjoin him from further employment with Manugistics.  Mr. Burdette countered that the agreement was unenforceable because its provisions were unreasonable and that Weseley had only signed the agreement once litigation began.

The Court’s Decision

The court found in favor of Weseley and enforced the non-compete covenant, enjoining Mr. Burdette from working for Manugistics for a period of six months as stated in the language of the agreement.  It validated the agreement because there was adequate consideration in the form of “continued employment, an articulated paid vacation entitlement, a new entitlement to severance benefits, and stock options”.  Furthermore, it found the limitations to be reasonable such that they fairly balanced Weseley’s desire to protect its business and Mr. Burdette’s desire to still be able to pursue his career.

It was paramount that the court protected the company’s interests since Mr. Burdette had a great deal of access to proprietary research & development information that could have severely disadvantaged Weseley should Mr. Burdette have shared the information with Manugistics.  Although the court stated that there was no evidence that he had already disclosed confidential information, it held that he would inadvertently draw upon his knowledge gained while employed at Weseley and eventually disclose some amount, however small it may be, in the course of his new employment with Manugistics.

–

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Sexual Harassment Under Connecticut Law

Leave a reply

Under the Connecticut Discriminatory Employment Practices Act, codified at Connecticut General Statute 46a-60(a)(8), it shall be a discriminatory practice “[f]or an employer [. . .] to harass any employee, person seeking employment or member on the basis of sex or gender identity or expression.  ‘Sexual harassment shall, for the purposes of this section be defined as any unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors or any conduct of a sexual nature when (A) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, (B) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (C) such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.”[1]

Sexual harassment can include actions ranging from suggestive or lewd remarks to unwelcome hugs, touches, or kisses, to retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment.  Furthermore, sexual harassment can happen by a male or a female, to a male or a female.  And the harasser does not need to be the victim’s supervisor – harassment can come from a co-worker or agent.

There are outlets in Connecticut to turn to, should you find yourself with questions about sexual harassment.  Sometimes a victim may not be sure if unwanted attention rises to the level of sexual harassment.  The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities provides valuable information on sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace, including step-by-step guides on how to proceed if you are the victim of such harassment.  If the situation requires legal action, please contact an experienced employment law attorney.

–

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. We at Maya Murphy frequently litigate employment claims in both state and federal courts.  Should you have any questions about sexual harassment or any other employment law matter or to schedule a consultation, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

[1] Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-60(a)(8).

Litigating A Non-Compete Agreement in Connecticut

Leave a reply

In Connecticut, the breach of an employment agreement by an employer is a recognized defense to the enforcement of a covenant not to compete.  The breach must be material. For example, if the employee were promised a bonus or stock options and the employer refused to honor the promise. In order for the breach to effectively waive the non-compete restriction, the employee must timely object to the breach by the employer, otherwise the breach is waived.

For more information, or to discuss an employment contract, non-compete, stock options, or bonus situation with an attorney, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com or (203) 221-3100.

US Supreme Court Establishes Employer Friendly Definition of “Supervisor” for Employer Liability for Title VII Employment Discrimination

Leave a reply
Vance v. Ball State University, 520 U.S. (2013)

The United States Supreme Court decided two very closely watched employment law cases interpreting harassment and discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The first case decided 5-4 in favor of the employer, Vane v. Ball State University [1], addressed a question left open by two previous Supreme Court cases[2], who qualifies as a “supervisor” so as to hold an employer vicariously liability under Title VII for an employee’s unlawful harassment or discrimination?

Case #1

In this case, Maetta Vance, an African-American woman, was employed as a full-time catering assistant with Ball State University.  She initially filed internal complaints with BSU and charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging racial harassment and discrimination by a fellow employee, Davis, a white woman and catering specialist employed in the same division as Vance.

The situation persisted causing Vance to file a lawsuit in 2006 claiming that she had been subjected to a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII.  While the parties agreed that Davis did not have the authority to fire, hire, promote, or transfer Vance, in her capacity as a lead caterer, Davis controlled the day to day duties of Vance.  In her complaint, she alleged that Davis was her supervisor and that BSU was liable for Davis’ creation of a racially hostile work environment.

The plaintiff, Vance, argued that a person is a “supervisor” if he/she has authority to control someone else’s daily activities and evaluate performance.  The employer argued that a “supervisor” must have more power, such as the ability to take a tangible actions including: “hiring, firing, demoting, promoting, transferring or disciplining” the employee.[3]

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, an employer’s liability for harassment and discrimination depends on the status of the harasser. If the harassing employee is the victim’s co-worker, the employer is liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions.[4]  However, if the harassing employee is the victim’s supervisor different rules apply.

Case #2

In two companion cases from 1998, Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. Boca Raton, the Supreme Court held that an employer is strictly liable under Title VII for discrimination or harassment by an employee who is a “supervisor” where the harassment amounts to tangible employment actions.

Where there is no adverse employment action, the employer is still vicariously liable for the supervisor’s hostile work environment unless the employer can establish as an affirmative defense that (1) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and (2) that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities that the employer provided.[5]  Under this framework, therefore, it matters whether the harasser is a “supervisor” or simply a co-worker.

Writing for a five-to-four majority, Justice Alito’s opinion adopted the rule proposed by the employer, holding that for purposes of this Title VII rule, to be a “supervisor,” a person must have the power to take a “tangible employment action” against the victim.[6]

That is, he must be able to “effect a ‘significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.”[7]  The employer was entitled to win the case because Vance had not adequately shown that the person who discriminated against her was a supervisor under the Court’s definition.

Takeaway 

Thus, for the purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, “an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s unlawful harassment only when the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim,” such as significant change in employment status, responsibilities, or changes in benefits.[8]

–

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. Should you have any questions about Title VII and workplace discrimination or any other employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

[1] Vance v. Ball State University, 520 U.S. ___ (2013)

[2] Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth 524 U. S. 742 (1998), Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775 (1998),

[3] 2008 WL 4247836, *12 (quoting Hall v. Bodine Elect. Co., 276 F. 3d 345, 355 (CA7 2002)

[4] Vance v. Ball State University, 520 U.S. ___ (2013)

[5] Faragher, at 807; Ellerth, at 765.

[6] Vance v. Ball State University, 520 U.S. ___ (2013)

[7] Vance v. Ball State University, 520 U.S. ___ (2013); Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 761

[8] Vance v. Ball State University, 520 U.S. ___ (2013)