Search results for: sexual harassment

On August 12, 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed new legislation amending the New York State Human Rights Law (the “NYSHRL”), changing the State law’s previous adherence to certain fundamental principles of federal law concerning employment harassment generally, including the standard for determining employer liability for “hostile work environment” discrimination claims and the availability of punitive damages, among other issues. Whereas New York courts have historically interpreted the NYSHRL based on interpretations of claims filed under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the new amendments will alter the applicability of many significant precedents.

The amendment addresses workplace harassment, including but not limited to sexual harassment, against employees in any protected group. Claims of harassment based on age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, military status, sex, disability, predisposing genetic characteristics, familial status, marital status, domestic violence victim status, or claims based on an employee’s opposition to such misconduct, are subject to the new provisions.

To begin with, the revised NYSHRL will now cover employers of all sizes, and even includes new protections for domestic workers, who will now be protected on the same grounds as other types of employees. Some of the law’s provisions take effect immediately, others within 60 days or 120 days of the law’s passage. Broadly stated, the law purports to provide “increased protections for protected classes and special protections for employees who have been sexually harassed.”

Click here for the full GT Alert, “Attention New York Employers: When It Comes to Workplace Harassment, Times Are Changing.”

The UK’s Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA), which received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025, introduces wide-ranging reforms to UK employment law. The Act spans a broad range of topics, including family-related rights, flexible working, trade union law, zero and low-hours arrangements, unfair dismissal, fire and rehire, collective redundancies, sexual harassment, and enforcement. Some measures require secondary legislation, and implementation will be phased over the next two years.

Click here to read the full GT Alert.

Employers who play music in the workplace – or allow employees to play music in the workplace – beware. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the content of music played in the workplace could give rise to liability for hostile work environment sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. While the Ninth Circuit’s analysis was limited to whether the plaintiffs’ claims – as pled – could state a claim, the ruling indicates that such a claim could succeed, at least in theory.

Background

In Sharp v. S&S Activewear, LLC, the Ninth Circuit analyzed whether music played in the workplace can constitute actionable hostile work environment harassment under Title VII. Stephanie Sharp and seven of her warehouse co-workers – including one man – sued their employer, S&S Activewear, alleging that S&S allowed its managers and employees to play “foul and abusive music” in the warehouse. The music was pervasive, according to plaintiffs’ allegations:

Blasted from commercial-strength speakers placed throughout the warehouse, the music overpowered operational background noise and was nearly impossible to escape. Sometimes employees placed the speakers on forklifts and drove around the warehouse, making it more difficult to predict—let alone evade—the music’s reach. 

Plaintiffs alleged that playing the music constituted a hostile work environment based on sex. Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the music played “contained extraordinarily graphic and sexually foul content.”

S&S filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (“Rule 12”), arguing that plaintiffs failed to state a claim because the conduct alleged did not amount to discrimination because of sex. S&S argued that because both men and women claimed offense and because the music was played throughout the facility, it was not directed at a specific sex, specifically. The district court agreed with S&S and dismissed the action because plaintiffs did not allege (1) that any specific group (e.g., women) was targeted, or (2) that any individual/group was subjected to different treatment than another. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal, holding both that (1) “sexually derogatory content” – including music – could constitute harassment, and (2) content that offends both men and women can satisfy the “because of sex” requirement under Title VII. It is important to note that, as the case was dismissed at the motion to dismiss stage, the court accepted plaintiffs’ allegations as true. Neither court made any factual determination regarding the facts alleged or content of the music allegedly played.

Music as Harassment

The Ninth Circuit held that music – like other content or conduct – in the workplace can rise to sex-based harassment. The court reasoned that the use of derogatory language in the workplace or “lyrics loaded with such sexist slurs” alter the terms and conditions of employment such that they constitute harassment. The court likened music with derogatory, “sexually graphic,” and “misogynistic” language to ubiquitous sexually offensive comments or graffiti in the workplace. The court was, however, clear that it did not intend to “ascribe misogyny to any particular musical genre.”

Harassment Need Not Affect a Single Group

The Ninth Circuit rejected the district court’s finding that discrimination claims were “fatally flawed” because plaintiffs alleged that the music offended both men and women. The court explained that “sexually charged conduct may simultaneously offend different genders in unique and meaningful ways,” and thus male and female employees could bring hostile work environment claims alongside one another. The court rejected what it described as S&S’s “equal opportunity harasser defense,” reasoning that allowing such a defense would empower employers to create a universally hostile work environment as a shield, which “would leave a gaping hole in Title VII’s coverage.”

What This Means for Employers

While employers are generally expected to maintain policies and practices that ensure their employees are not discriminated against or exposed to a hostile work environment, this decision confirms that employers must consider (and potentially address) employee-created work conditions such as the playing of potentially offensive music – and other forms of employee expression, regardless of the chosen medium. Failure to do so may lead to litigation if not liability. This decision puts the employer in the unenviable position of determining whether specific genres, songs, or artists should be allowed in the workplace. The decision leaves unanswered some questions, such as whether employees could state a claim on the basis of music or media by an artist (or even a politician) who has expressed racist, sexist, or other offensive views, even where those views are not evident through the specific content an employer may have allowed.

This decision may have a chilling effect on employers who allow music in the workplace. Employers should remain vigilant about safeguarding employee working conditions, including monitoring what music or other entertainment is being watched or listened to in the workplace.

On Oct. 21, join Greenberg Traurig’s recognized Texas Labor & Employment practitioners to discuss the issues employers face as the “new normal” emerges and takes shape. With the imminent close of the 87th Legislature, the start of a new school year, and the return-to-the-office mandates, Texas employers face a number of new and unanswered questions:

  • Can they require COVID-19 vaccines for their employees?
  • How do they handle challenging COVID-19 vaccine exemption requests?
  • Are they required to mandate masks?
  • Are they required to accommodate COVID-19-related stress issues?
  • How can they mitigate risk under the new sexual harassment law?
  • Can they be held liable under the new Texas Heartbeat Act?

Thursday, October 21, 2021
11:30 a.m. CST (12:30 p.m. EST)

REGISTER HERE.

Speakers 

Jordan V. Cowman
Shareholder
Dallas, TX		 Alicia Sienne Voltmer
Of Counsel
Dallas, TX		 Shira R. Yoshor
Shareholder
Houston, TX

 

2020 saw significant changes in Illinois employment law, and the trend continues in 2021. Among the 2020 changes were Illinois Human Rights Act amendments requiring Illinois employers to conduct annual sexual harassment awareness training of employees and to provide annual reporting of discrimination charges filed against them.

Continue reading the full GT Alert here. 

The holidays are upon us, NYC is bustling with tourists, and, with the typical surge in business this time of year, employers may be thinking about adding a few employees to their December and January schedules. This GT Alert provides important considerations with respect to those seasonal employment offers, including minimum wage, sexual harassment training, NYC’s Paid Safe and Sick Leave Law, New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law, disability benefits, and child labor laws.

Click here to read the full GT Alert.

 In certain organizations, particularly non-profit organizations, volunteers perform services for the organization. In a recent case in the Northern District of Illinois (Volling v. Antioch Rescue Squad, 1:11-cv-04920 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 4, 2012)), the court was faced with the question of whether members of a volunteer rescue squad could sue the relevant service organizations for sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation. The two organizations moved to dismiss the complaint contending that the plaintiffs were volunteers and therefore excluded from coverage under Title VII.

The court examined several factors in making its determination including “the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party.” Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 751-52 (1989). The court determined that “[n]o one of these factors is determinative,” thus rejecting the defendant organizations’ contention that the absence of remuneration should control. The court stated that remuneration is but one factor in the totality of the circumstances. “The question and degree of remuneration are simply factors to be considered, along with many others, in assessing whether a worker is an ‘employee’ for purposes of Title VII.”

After examination, the court found that the workers “appear to be subject to the strictures of a typical workplace and – importantly – to the control exercised by an employer over paid employees.” Thus, the court determined that the workers qualified as employees who could bring suit under Title VII.

Notably, other courts have imposed a “significant remuneration” requirement when seeking to bring suit under Title VII and that an absence of remuneration can be the determinative factor as to whether a volunteer qualifies as an employee under Title VII.

Nevertheless, although this issue is far from settled, employers should be aware that Title VII may extend to cover volunteers in the workforce and provide volunteers the opportunity to bring suit alleging harassment and discrimination.

 

Greenberg Traurig, LLP (GT) has approximately 2,400 attorneys in 42 locations in the United States, Latin America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. GT has been recognized for its philanthropic giving, diversity, and innovation, and is consistently among the largest firms in the U.S. on the Law360 400 and among the Top 20 on the Am Law Global 100. The firm is net carbon neutral with respect to its office energy usage and Mansfield Rule 4.0 Plus Certified. Web: www.gtlaw.com…
Continue Reading Services

A new decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit provides a stark reminder to employers of the ease with which a former employee can get a lawsuit before a jury. Berry v. Chicago Transit Auth., Case No. 07-2288 (7th Cir. Aug. 23, 2010). Cynthia Berry alleged that a coworker sexually harassed her on a single occasion. She complained to a supervisor and then to a CTA EEO investigator. She also called the police. In addition to the harasser, there were three witnesses to the alleged harassment. None supported Berry’s version of events. The police concluded that Berry had been the aggressor. The CTA investigator reached the same conclusion and also concluded that Berry had not been sexually harassed.

Berry sued. The CTA moved for summary judgment, arguing that the court should enter judgment in its favor because there was insufficient evidence for a jury to enter a verdict for Berry. The trial court found that Berry’s uncorroborated assertions were not sufficient to create a genuine issue as to material facts, and entered judgment for the CTA. But on appeal, the 7th Circuit rejected “the misconception that uncorroborated testimony from the non-movant cannot prevent summary judgment because it is ‘self-serving.’ If based on personal knowledge or firsthand experience, such testimony can be evidence of disputed material facts. It is not for courts at summary judgment to weigh evidence or determine the credibility of such testimony; we leave those tasks to factfinders.” Berry at 6 (citations omitted). Because (at least according to Berry) her account was based on firsthand experience, the 7th Circuit held that it was sufficient to create a genuine issue as to the material facts and, thus, to avoid summary judgment.

This case illustrates the importance of discovery in the litigation process. Defendants’ counsel should be able to tailor deposition questions in such a manner as to uncover the truth and to avoid creating disputed issues of material fact. Of course, despite defense counsels’ best efforts, an occasional plaintiff who is willing to lie under oath during a deposition may succeed in getting his or her case to a jury just by saying the right things, but that plaintiff’s credibility easily can be attacked at trial.