ExpertLaw.com Forums

Statute of Limitations for Sexual Harassment

Printable View

  • 07-25-2011, 11:29 PM
    ironjohn929
    Statute of Limitations for Sexual Harassment
    My question involves labor and employment law for the state of: ARIZONA

    It should be noted that I am writing on behalf of a co-worker. In 2008 this co-worker was the victim of numerous accounts of verbal sexual harassment (VSH) and two accounts of physical sexual harassment (PSH) by her manager. After the initial account of PSH, she confronted the individual and indicated to him in no uncertain terms that his behavior was both unwarranted and unacceptable. At this time the manager responded with regret and apologized. One month later, the manager engaged in another act of PSH, to which my co-worker responded with a letter to management. When she returned to work three days later, she was informed by other co-workers that the offender was no longer a manager and was transferred to another base. Approximately six months later the offender severed the relationship with the company on his own accord. One month ago (June, 2011), upper management informed the crew, together with the co-worker, that this individual would be re-hired in a part-time non-manager status, and if anyone had an issue with this decision they could talk to her privately. Since this news, my co-worker has expressed to me that she is enduring an acute level of emotional, physical, and mental stress at the thought of this individual returning to work out of fear that he would re-offend. Further, she is fearful of losing her job should she contact managment regarding this issue, since Arizona is an at-will employment state.

    At this point she is considering seeking counsel to consider her options to enjoin the offender from working with her or at her place of employment. However, it is my understanding from the EEOC website that a victim of sexual harassment has 180 days to file a complaint. It is further my understanding that a company cannot be enjoined from hiring an individual. This leads to the following questions:

    1) Does the 180 day statue of limitations apply in the case of an offender being rehired?

    2) Can the courts prevent an employer from placing an offender in the same workplace as the victim, as it applies to the background of this case?

    3) As it applies to this case, what can be done to engender a corrective action on the employer/offender?

    Thank you for your help,

    Sincerely,

    IJ
  • 07-26-2011, 05:54 AM
    eerelations
    Re: Statute of Limitations for Sexual Harassment
    Employers are not legally required to not employ sexually harassing employees. All employers are legally bound to do is to ensure that the harassment stops. As long as this employee doesn't illegally harass your coworker, your employer is not breaking any laws.
  • 07-26-2011, 08:08 AM
    cbg
    Re: Statute of Limitations for Sexual Harassment
    1.) Yes. If this happened in 2008, she has long since lost her window of opportunity to file a complaint with the EEOC. What's more, since the company took action (demotion and transfer) to correct the problem at the time, even if she could still file a complaint, she'd lose.

    2.) The question is moot since there's not going to be any court case.

    3.) Nothing, until or unless the offender actually re-offends.
  • 08-07-2011, 09:00 PM
    ESteele
    Re: Statute of Limitations for Sexual Harassment
    Cbg is correct, as usual. Let me add your friend should remain watchful. If the returning employee harasses her again, she should promptly report it to management, and she should promptly consult with an attorney and/or EEOC.

    The employer is taking a big risk from a liability standpoint. If this fellow has not learned his lesson and continues to harass your friend, the employer will have difficulty arguing in court that it could not foresee the possiblity he would return to his old bad behavior. For this reason, it is relatively rare that a company will rehire a worker it previously let go for engaging in sexual harassment.

    By the way, I think the limitations period for filing an administrative charge with EEOC in Arizona is actually 300 days, not 180 days. In any event, your friend should react and file a charge well within either possible limitations period if the harassment occurs again.
  • 08-08-2011, 07:21 AM
    cbg
    Re: Statute of Limitations for Sexual Harassment
    Esteele, I am not disagreeing with you, I am asking. Is not the extension from 180 days to 300 days contingent on the victim first filing a complaint with the state equivalent of the EEOC? Or am I thinking of something else?
  • 08-08-2011, 09:15 AM
    ESteele
    Re: Statute of Limitations for Sexual Harassment
    This area of Title VII is needlessly, world class confusing. Filing with the EEOC and ultimately maintaining a Title VII lawsuit can prove tricky.

    If an aggrieved worker is a private sector employee, she will first need to file an administrative discrimination complaint with the EEOC or with a state or local Fair Employment Practice Agency (“FEP”). If an aggrieved private sector employee works in a jurisdiction with an overlapping FEP (e.g., Arizona, Iowa or Ohio), she must file an administrative complaint under Title VII with the EEOC or a state or local FEP within 300 days of the last act of discrimination. If said employee works in a jurisdiction without an overlapping FEP (e.g., Alabama, Arkansas or Mississippi), she must file her administrative complaint with EEOC within 180 days of the last discriminatory act. In contrast, if the aggrieved employee works for the federal government, she has only 45 days from the last discriminatory act to contact an EEO counselor to initiate her complaint.

    Under any of these scenarios, if she fails to discern the appropriate deadline and does not file timely, then she in turn foregoes the right to eventually go to court under Title VII.

    Cbg (or anyone similarly interested), if you want to read more about the interplay of the limitations periods for “work-sharing” jurisdictions, i.e., those with FEP’s, and non-work-sharing jurisdictions, I would recommend you start with EEOC v. Commercial Office Products Co., 486 U.S. 107, 108, 108 S.Ct. 166, 174-76, 100 L.Ed.2d 96 (1988). In my opinion, this decision provides the clearest exposition of Title VII’s confusing administrative limitations scheme.
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved