Effective Antidiscrimination Policies Provide Defense To Employer
July 1, 2000
An employer that has disseminated an effective
antiharassment policy is insulated from sexual harassment liability if
complaining employees unreasonably fail to follow the corrective mechanisms
the employer provides. That ruling, by the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals in Madray v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc. (11th Cir., April 13, 2000),
should prompt employers to review their current policies and procedures to
ensure they are operating in a way that effectively addresses issues of
workplace sexual harassment and creates the best defense to lawsuits against
the employer for sexual harassment.
The Madray case illustrates how crucial it is
for employers to have detailed policies against harassment and well-defined
procedures to be followed by employees who claim to be victimized by the
unlawful workplace conduct of others. In Madray, the court upheld
summary judgment for Publix on claims by two plaintiffs under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, after concluding that Publix exercised reasonable
care to prevent the alleged sexual harassment and responded promptly to
correct the alleged harassment after the plaintiffs complained to the
appropriate company representative. The court found that Publix
exercised reasonable care by:
- promulgating an effective sexual
harassment policy with appropriate complaint procedures
- disseminating information about the
policy to its employees
- making a good-faith effort to enforce
the policy
Publix’s antiharassment policy required
employees to bring complaints to the attention of appropriate members of
company management and provided employees with names, titles and telephone
numbers for appropriate company representatives to contact. The court
found that Publix’s anti-harassment policy met applicable legal standards
because it did not require that employees complain to the offending supervisor
or through the supervisor’s chain of command and because the policy provided
multiple avenues for employees to lodge complaints to specifically designated
and accessible company representatives.
The court concluded that “once an employer
has promulgated an effective antiharassment policy and disseminated that
policy and associated procedures to its employees, then it is incumbent upon
the employees to utilize the procedural mechanisms established by the company
specifically to address problems and grievances.” Because the
plaintiffs in the Madray case did not initially use the published procedures,
and instead made informal complaints to mid-level managers, Publix was not on
notice of the alleged harassment until a proper complaint was made to a
company representative designated by Publix to receive complaints.
The court recognized that the wide variety of
employment settings makes it difficult to establish a uniform test for
determining whether an employer’s antiharassment policy and complaint
procedures demonstrate the employer’s reasonable care in preventing sexual
harassment. Courts will consider the employer’s size, location,
geographic scope, organizational structure, and industry segment as some of
the characteristics which impact the analysis of whether the employer’s
antiharassment policy adequately fulfills the deterrent purpose in Title
VII.
In light of Madray, employers should
reevaluate their existing policies and procedures to ensure that they are
providing the best remedial mechanisms for employees to address harassment
issues in the workplace through multiple, alternative and accessible channels
which do not involve an alleged harasser or the alleged harasser’s
supervisory chain of command. Employers should also periodically
republish those policies and procedures to ensure each of their employees is
aware of the remedial mechanisms which exist.
For more information please contact Eric
Gabrielle at 1-888-688-8500 or at egabriel@hklaw.com.
Related Practices