Inside Redlands is posted monthly by the Office of Public Relations.
Submissions can be sent to Monique Henderson.
Deadlines for submissions are the second Monday of each month. Call (909) 335-5228 for more information.
 

To: The Campus Community
From: EEO Office
Date: February 11, 2003
Subject: $0 for Discrimination; $83,000.00 for Retaliation

Even when allegations of unlawful discrimination fail in litigation, an unsuccessful discrimination case can be used as proof that an employer had an unlawful motive for retaliation if the facts support the claim. This is a recent message from the 11th Circuit Court. The California federal appeals court (9th Circuit) has precedence for following similar direction.

In Shannon v. BellSouth Telecomm Inc., Mr. Shannon regularly worked Sundays and frequently used his lunch break to attend Sunday School. After a BellSouth manager reported seeing Shannon at church, he was suspended without pay for misuse of a company vehicle. Shannon filed a union grievance and a lawsuit alleging religious discrimination.

Once the suit was filed, Shannon was transferred to a “tougher route”, assigned a van without air conditioning, supervisors told co-workers to avoid Shannon, and his annual overtime of $20,000.00 per year was reduced to $1,500.00 per year. Shannon sued for retaliation, alleging that these behaviors towards him were directly related to the filing of his suit alleging religious discrimination.

Shannon failed in his claim of religious discrimination, but the 11th Circuit awarded him $83,000.00 for enduring retaliation at the hands of BellSouth.
The court stated, “To demonstrate retaliation under law, a plaintiff must establish that he or she engaged in a protected activity under anti-discrimination laws, that an adverse employment decision was applied to the plaintiff, and that the complaint was the cause of the adverse action. Viewed collectively, BellSouth’s actions clearly appear retaliatory.”

Victims of unlawful discrimination should be encouraged to bring their concerns forward for inquiry. Retaliation is designed to keep the victim silent despite their legal right to file such claims. Allegations of retaliation and unlawful discrimination are considered as separate counts by the EEOC, DFEH, and federal and state courts. Managers and supervisors should be supportive when allegations of unlawful discrimination are lodged and contact the EEO Office immediately. Supervisors and Managers have a legal duty to use reasonable care in preventing and investigating allegations of unlawful discrimination and subsequent retaliation. Supportive actions will assist in avoiding a claim of retaliation connected with allegations of unlawful discrimination.

TO: University Community
FROM: EEO Office
DATE: March 2003
Subject: Age and Managing Change

The increasing age of the American Worker and recent corporate downsizing have resulted in a significant jump in age discrimination complaints filed with the EEOC. One such case was recently heard by the7th Circuit Appeals Court.

In Koski v. International Corporation, Lee Koski was hired in 1970 as a Methods Engineer for Sincraft Inc. In 1987, he was promoted from an Estimator to an Operations Manager. However, Koski performed poorly and in 1993 he was demoted from Operations Manager to a Senior Estimator. In 1995, Koski was warned that his job was in jeopardy due to his inability to communicate with the Engineering Department and other employees, which spurred a breakdown in the handoff of customer orders from Estimating to Engineering.

Koski made adjustments to his performance. Several managers even suggested that Koski be given increased managerial responsibilities in preparation for another shot at an Operations Manager position. Koski earned merit salary increases in 1996 and 1997.

However, in 1998 Koski’s supervisor again expressed concerns about performance. Koski’s supervisor stated that he believed that Koski had made disparaging comments about his ability to supervise and the direction that he was taking the departments for which he had stewardship. Two employees told the supervisor that Koski said he was “waiting for the supervisor to be fired before he would cooperate with Spincraft management”. Koski was warned that these comments would not be tolerated and that any additional comments “would be dealt with.”

Koski continued to make derogatory comments towards the supervisor and the direction of the organization. In late 1998, Koski was terminated for “constant bitterness.” Koski filed suit claiming that he was fired because he was 56 years old (age discrimination).

Koski accused the employer of “suspiciously changing its reasons for his termination” and that the changes supported his assertion that the reason given for termination was a lie to hide the true reason for dismissal: age discrimination.

The 7th Appeals court stated that “Spincraft focused on Koski’s lack of teamwork and poor transition from his role as an Estimator to an Engineer, and at another point it stressed moodiness and failure to take criticism. We find no nexus to age in these issues. It all boils down to the same underlying problem; Koski’s inability to communicate well”.

The court found that an employer may terminate an employee for not “performing in ways that support the mission and objectives of the organization” and that this is not pretext for age discrimination as alleged in this case.

To: Campus Community
From: EEO Office
Date: March 1, 2003
Subject: Male to Male Sexual Harassment Focus of Recent EEOC Suits

Despite employer efforts in training all employees on unlawful behavior in the workplace, the EEOC has consistently received 17,000 claims of sexual harassment per year. This does not include claims filed by complainants in State agencies (i.e. California’s DFEH). The EEOC continues to vigilantly pursue same-sex sexual harassment claims, and assert that same sex sexual harassment claims have resulted in an increase of EEOC claims filed by males. In 1994, 10% of all claims were filed by males compared to 2001 when that number reached 14%.

The EEOC recently prevailed in a male to male sexual harassment case heard in federal court. In EEOC v. Ron Clark Ford, three males filed claims with the EEOC for sexual harassment. The men claimed that managers routinely subjected them to sexually explicit comments, that they had their genitals and buttocks gripped against their will by male managers, and that they were asked for sex by male managers.

The three men quit and filed a claim. The dealership attempted to defend itself by stated that the behavior was “common horseplay”. The EEOC conducted an investigation and concluded that the behavior constituted sexual harassment under applicable laws. The federal court heard the case and decided that Ron Clark Ford would pay $140,000 to three male workers, establish a “zero tolerance” sexual harassment policy and require training for all employees, including managers.

In a second federal same sex sexual harassment case, The EEOC has brought suit against Kraft Foods Inc. for same sex harassment of male employees. The suit alleges that male employees were propositioned for sex, were touched and grabbed inappropriately, were made the subject of harassing sexual comments, and were sexually assaulted by a male supervisor. Though the courts have not heard this case to date, the EEOC is asking for over $3 million dollars for the male employees.

The University of Redlands maintains a policy prohibiting unlawful discrimination and harassment. It is designed to address all types of unlawful harassment, including same-sex sexual harassment. The University is committed to conducting a prompt and thorough investigation when claims of sexual harassment are brought forward.


Campus News   Out & About   Employee News   
Memos & Announcements   Press Releases   Calendars
Suggestion Box    Archives   Contact Us