Adolescent girls: object of sexual harassment
Both the press and labor lawyers have significantly educated the American public about the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace. Many adults were subjected to sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with a person’s job performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating, or sexually offensive work environment . . However, in recent years, the general public has come to realize not only how unprofessional and unethical such practices are, but more importantly how such conduct can lead to significant litigation costs and massive lawsuits. out of emotional distress.
Massachusetts employers and supervisors may not sexually harass their employees through direct or indirect advances. When a supervisor’s conduct has the purpose and effect of unreasonably interfering with an employee’s job performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating, and sexually offensive work environment, the Massachusetts courts have classified such conduct as sexual harassment. Cardona v. Conn. Car rental, 20 Mass. L. Rep. 82 (2005). More specifically, under Massachusetts law, it is an illegal practice for an employer, as defined mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, paragraph 1 (5), to sexually harass any employee. In addition, sexual harassment is not limited to any verbal conduct of a sexual nature that unreasonably interferes with an employee’s job performance through the creation of a humiliating or sexually offensive work environment may be sexual harassment under mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B. Melnychenko v. 84 Lumber Co., 424 Mass. 285 (1997).
Under Massachusetts law, an employee has the right to be free from unreasonable, substantial, or serious interference with privacy, as set forth in GL v. 214, § 1B, ID. When a supervisor’s misconduct occurs in the defendant’s workplace while he or she is in a supervisory position, the sexually harassing conduct falls within the scope of employment for the purposes of GL c. 214, paragraph 1B. College-Town, Div. Of Interco, Inc. v. Massachusetts Common Against Discrimination, 400 Mass. 156, 165-167, 508 NE2d 587 (1987).
As a result of the above, many companies have instituted sexual harassment policies, which require all employees to read before beginning employment. Additionally, many companies have training programs for their adult workforce. The problem is that many companies employ part-time teenage employees, who neither understand the ramifications of sexual harassment or participate in any of the training programs, read the manuals, or their supervisors tell them about sexual harassment, who in many cases are also teenagers. This is particularly a problem for businesses that are typically located in a mall, such as fast food companies, retailers, and amusement parks.
During 2007, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), referring to youth ages 16 to 19, “the charges filed and anecdotal evidence indicate that discrimination is a problem for adolescents.” According to a social work teacher, Susan Fineran, 35% of surveyed high school students claimed to have been subjected to sexual harassment at work, of which more than 60% were teenagers. According to a report in Nation’s Restaurant News magazine, over the past decade, restaurants alone have paid more than $ 7.3 million to combat the sexual harassment lawsuit against teens.
What is the essence of all this? If American companies want to avoid costly and lengthy litigation, they must do a much better job educating teenage part-time employees, just as they have their full-time adult workforce.