When I daydream, I envision a workplace where people are nice to one another and everyone gets along.
I also envision wearing a jet pack, flying across the city and landing, to great applause, in a Dairy Queen parking lot where Im given buckets of free ice cream.
Sadly, its the second fantasy thats more likely to come true. Workplaces invariably contain non-nice people, including those whose non-niceness rises to the level of harassment.
Thanks to two recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, workplace harassers and the companies that employ them are more likely to get away with making other peoples lives miserable.
Generally speaking, its easier for employees to hold companies liable for harassment if the harasser is a supervisor. Its a higher bar for a company to be liable for behavior among co-workers.
But in the first of these two cases, the justices narrowed the definition of a supervisor. They said that for a company to be liable in racial or sexual harassment cases, the harasser has to be a supervisor who has authority to hire, fire or demote an employee. Many of the countrys lower courts had previously defined a supervisor as a person in charge of your day-to-day activity.
That effectively turns most middle managers in America into co-workers.
The effect of that is where you have employees who have their day-to-day work controlled by other employees, if those employees harass the people who work under them, those people may be reasonably nervous about complaining, said Deborah Widiss, an employment discrimination expert and associate professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law. And if they do complain, the employer is far less likely to be held responsible.
To make matters worse, the courts second ruling makes it harder for workers to prevail in retaliation lawsuits involving Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects against employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
For example, an employee who claims he was fired or overlooked for a promotion because he filed a discrimination complaint must now prove that the complaint was the primary reason behind the companys decision.
Before, the employee wouldve needed only to prove the complaint was a motivating factor in the decision.
I think employees who do feel theyre subject to harassing conduct wont feel comfortable making a complaint to human resources or asking someone to look into it, Widiss said. Because then if they get retaliated against, they have to prove something thats difficult to prove that if Id never made that complaint, then this other thing would never have happened to me.
She added: We know that fear of retaliation is already a major reason why employees are hesitant to report discriminatory conduct. Theres plenty of survey data and even anecdotal data showing that the risk of retaliation is a prime reason people dont complain. So anything that waters down the level of protection to employees who do complain will obviously make it worse.
Businesses are, of course, declaring these two decisions victories that will cut down on frivolous lawsuits.
Its undeniable that there are too many meritless workplace lawsuits. But there is also too much day-to-day harassment in workplaces, and I dont think the solution is to make it easier for companies to ignore.