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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| coworker-harassment/unreported-incidents-and-investigated-incident | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not | |
| coworker-negligence | Employer knew or should have known of coworker harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| supervisor-harassment | Vicarious liability for supervisor harassment resulting in a tangible employment action or unexcused by Faragher/Ellerth | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 | Basis for imputing harassment liability to the employer | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a) | coworker-harassment/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.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.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.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. |
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.”
/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007
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.