prompt remedial action

Last week, various Connecticut newspapers reported on a judicial marshal who allegedly sexually harassed four women, including a DCF worker.  

Whether the charges have merit or not is a something we’ll have to leave to the judicial system itself, but it raises a point that I haven’t seen often raised.

An employer’s duty to stop

Reading the Second Circuit’s decision in Duch v. Jakubek (decided on Friday, December 4th), a distinct image came to mind: The ostrich who sticks its head in the sand.

Why the ostrich? Because, the Duch case discusses what to do with a supervisor who purposely ignores evidence of sexual harassment.  And the court concludes that

With complaints of sexual harassment, there is a tendency of some employers to overreact.  The employer may decide to terminate an otherwise successful employee on the basis of one incident — no matter the context.  Some employers, of course, might simply ignore the problem altogether.

But another group of employers uses a "Goldilocks" approach to

Summary Orders (in other words, decisions with no precedential value) by the Second Circuit typically are not worth noting. However, a decision released today is telling for the court’s view of race and gender discrimination cases and it can be cited by parties under certain limitations.

In Williams v. Consolidated Edison of New York,