UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE / SOCIAL SECURITY
| Issues and Answers | ||
| Health insurance coverage must continue for dependent students on medical leave | |||
|
| Summary of State Law Changes | ||
|
| |||
|
| Test Your Human Resources Knowledge | ||
|
| Labor Law Journal Submissions | ||
|
| Human Resources Links | ||
|
| Labor Arbitrators' Awards and Biographies | ||
Understanding the New Disability and Genetic Discrimination Laws of 2008 
Learn how disability will be defined under the new Amendments Act and how to avoid discriminating against those who have a genetic marker for a disease.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claimed a victory with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ reversal of a district court’s ruling that The Boeing Company did not engage in unlawful sexual harassment or retaliation at its plant in Mesa, Arizona. The appeals court returned the case to an Arizona federal court for trial, the agency was pleased to announce.
The EEOC seeks relief in its lawsuit on behalf of Kelley Miles, a female mechanic who works on the Apache helicopter that Boeing manufactures for the US Army (EEOC v The Boeing Co, dkt no CV-03-1210-PHX-PGR). Miles works at Boeing’s Mesa facility.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision because it concluded there were triable issues of fact as to whether Miles was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her sex, whether Boeing adequately responded to her complaints and whether Boeing retaliated against Miles for complaining of the harassment (EEOC v The Boeing Company, 9thCir, dkt no 05-17386, July 31, 2008 (unpublished)).
Sexual harassment. The court of appeals concluded that, based on the evidence, a reasonable jury could infer that Miles was subject to sexual harassment by her coworkers. “Miles and others testified that, from 1998 to 2001, Miles was the target of offensive and sexual language, as well as physical advances by a male co-worker, and that male co-workers interfered with various aspects of her work,” the court noted.
The EEOC also raised triable issues of fact as to whether Boeing adequately responded to Miles’ complaints of harassment, the appeals court concluded. Although Boeing terminated one offending male employee and disciplined another, “a reasonable jury could find that these two employees were part of a much larger problem with respect to Miles’ treatment,” wrote the court.
There was evidence that the employee who was eventually terminated had been transferred into Miles’ department because he had repeatedly harassed other female employees, according to the court. Evidence also existed showing that the harassment continued even after Boeing took its initial measures, and the company knew or should have known that the problems were continuing, the court said.
Reprisal. There were also triable issues of fact on the EEOC’s retaliation claim because events occurring after Miles complained of the harassment could cause a reasonable jury to conclude that Miles was subject to an ongoing hostile work environment, and that Boeing knew or should have known about it, the appeals court concluded.
The case has been remanded to a United States District Judge in Arizona for trial.
“Studies have shown that female employees are often subjected to harassment when they work in non-traditional settings,” EEOC Phoenix District Director Chester Bailey pointed out. “Such harassment often has the effect of driving female employees out of non-traditional workplaces, which generally offer higher wages than those offered to women performing traditionally female jobs.”
For more information on this and other topics, consult CCH Employment Practices Guide or CCH Labor Relations.
Visit our News Library to read more news stories.
©2008, CCH. All Rights Reserved.
