Basis for imputing harassment liability to the employer

OR · 42usc2000e-2:hostile-environment.employer-liability

Basis for imputing workplace harassment to the employer under agency principles.

Exact element source

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer-
Source: docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [63:123] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.

Routes and case patterns

Curated routes and observed case patterns
RouteDefinitionMerits instance blocksDistinct merits casesExamples (up to 3 cases per count group)
coworker-harassment
provisional; provisional (1 case)
Whether the employer knew or should have known of coworker harassment and failed to act.1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0
1

Ginger v. District of Columbia — 477 F. Supp. 2d 41 (2007) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: unreported-incidents-and-investigated-incident

supervisor-harassment
provisional; 0 observed cases
Vicarious liability for supervisor harassment resulting in a tangible employment action or unexcused by Faragher/Ellerth0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
0Never used: no annotation uses in this snapshot

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
CaseElementHolding and scopePatternExact source quotations
Ginger v. District of Columbia — 477 F. Supp. 2d 41 (2007) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)Basis for imputing harassment liability to the employernot
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a)

unreported-incidents-and-investigated-incident
As for the writing on the chalkboard of racist sayings, Officer Richardson immediately erased these sayings and did not report them to anyone.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [30864:31006] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Although there is some dispute about the adequacy of the investigation into the KKK drawing, there is no dispute that the Department’s Office of Internal Affairs (“OIA”) did conduct an investigation.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [31488:31687] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Moreover, the Department can only be held liable for harassment of the plaintiffs by fellow employees “if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action.”
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [30291:30520] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 1 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Therefore, the employer could not reasonably have been expected to know of these incidents or take action against them.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [31051:31170] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations

interpretation

Moreover, the Department can only be held liable for harassment of the plaintiffs by fellow employees “if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action.”

Ginger v. District of Columbia — 477 F. Supp. 2d 41 (2007) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)

Moreover, the Department can only be held liable for harassment of the plaintiffs by fellow employees “if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action.”
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [30291:30520] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.

Basis for imputing workplace harassment to the employer under agency principles.