
Employees have a right to a workplace free of discrimination and harassment. Federal employment laws prohibit discrimination or harassment based upon the following characteristics:
- Sexual orientation
- Gender identity and pregnancy
- Religion
- Race
- Color
- Disability
While the employer or business is liable for discrimination and harassment that occurs in their workplace, there is some confusion as to whether managers or supervisors may also be liable. In this article, we will examine how the law has been interpreted regarding this matter.
What Does The Law Define As a Supervisor?
The definition of a supervisor depends on the law being applied to the case.
In California, the law will generally accept the definition of the Fair Employment and Housing Act when dealing with discrimination and harassment cases.
The FEHA considers supervisors as employers when it comes to interactions between the company’s employees. This means that both the company and the supervisor will be held liable for the supervisor’s actions or inaction, regardless of if the supervisor was acting on orders.
Under Government Code section 12940, supervisors are treated differently than other employees in workplace disputes. This is because the supervisor has more power over an employee than other employees. In the 2013 case of Vance v. Ball State, the US Supreme Court defined a supervisor as an employee who the employer has given the power to make tangible employment actions against fellow employees. They hold the power to hire, fire, reassign with different responsibilities, change the benefits, or fail to promote employees. Therefore, in terms of liability, a supervisor
is considered an agent of the employer.
Is a Supervisor Legally Responsible For Retaliation, Harassment, and Discrimination?
In Government Code section 12940(a), discrimination based on protected characteristics is prohibited. This includes:
- Sexual orientation
- Disability or medical condition
- Age
- Military and veteran status
- Gender expression
- Religion
- Race
Previous court rulings have interpreted discrimination as employment decisions such as compensation, hiring, and firing, as well as performance metrics and reviews. This means that policies must be made inclusive or metrics adjusted to ensure they do not discriminate against a protected characteristic. Reno v. Baird in 1998 ruled that supervisors cannot be held liable for carrying out an employer’s discriminatory policies.
The California Supreme Court also ruled in Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) that supervisors are not liable for FEHA retaliation because the decision-making is handled at a corporate level. The decision that leads to retaliation is often carried out by a number of people, and therefore, individual responsibility, especially given to a supervisor carrying out corporate orders is unfair.
Therefore, the court’s interpretation of the law means that supervisors cannot be held liable for retaliation or discrimination. The court sees them as not an individual act but a carrying out of corporate policy.
Harassment is seen differently by the law as none of the actions defined under the term “harassment” are necessary to managing personnel. Both an individual supervisor and an employer are liable if the supervisor harasses an employee.
If the person harassing an employee is not the supervisor, then the situation is different:
- The employer can only be held accountable if they knew of the harassment or should reasonably have known about the harassment. If the employer did not take immediate action and appropriately correct the harassment, they would be held liable.
- If a supervisor knew about the harassment but did not take action, they may not be held liable, but as an agent of the employer, they may trigger liability for the company.
The California Supreme Court notes in Roby that while in most cases supervisors are not personally liable for discrimination or retaliation, they may be if it can be proved that the manager’s words or actions were motivated by discrimination. This can prove that the supervisor is communicating a hostile message along with carrying out the official employment action. Additionally, in Roby, if there is evidence of both discrimination and harassment, then the prosecutor can set damages based on the most applicable.
Most supervisors cannot be charged with punitive damages; they would have to be a managing agent, director, or officer. Even if the supervisor or manager has the power to hire or fire employees, they are not a “managing agent.” The law will look at how much discretion they have and how their discretionary power affects overall business operations. Even so, a managing agent can only be charged with punitive damages if they encourage or endorse the harassment or discrimination.
Are Training or Employment Practices Taken Into Account For Discrimination and Harassment?
The California FEHA law AB 1825 requires all supervisors in a company larger than 50 employees must undertake sexual harassment training. Additionally, if the company regularly has 50 employees or more (including temporary and part-time employees), then their supervisors must do at least 2 hours of sexual harassment training every 2 years. Supervisors must complete this training within six months of their promotion.
The training must cover the following topics:
- The obligation that all supervisors have to report harassment, discrimination, or retaliation complaints to the HR manager or the designated company agent.
- That all supervisors must assist in reviewing and investigating the complaint as well as assisting with remedial measures.
- The definition of abusive conduct and how it effects employees. There are no minimum requirements as long as the coverage of abusive conduct is covered in a meaningful way.
Employers are legally required to retain their training documentation for at least two years. They must document the training date, sign-in sheet, which supervisors were trained, a copy of the training materials, the name of the training provider, and certificates of completion. If the course was a webinar or another form of e-learning, then the employers must retain similar information, including written questions and guidance that came up during the training.
These records will help an employer prove that they gave their supervisors the necessary training if they face a lawsuit. Even though companies smaller than 50 employees are not legally required to give their supervisors this training, they should consider doing so.
What Policies and Procedures Do Employers Need to Have In Place?
Employers need to have clear policies and procedures for preventing discrimination and harassment and for dealing with discrimination and harassment claims. FEHA regulations mean that all employers must have a written anti-discrimination, retaliation, and harassment policy. This policy must state the complaint process for these claims and how these claims are investigated. An employer cannot just distribute the DFEH-185 sexual harassment brochure; the policy must be:
- In writing
- List what the protected categories are under FEHA
- State that all employees and third parties are legally prohibited from engaging in illegal behavior or conduct. This includes supervisors, co-workers, managers, and even clients.
- Explain the complaints process, including:
- That the complaint is confidential
- That the complaint will receive a timely response
- That the complaint will be investigated by an impartial and qualified person
- That there will be documentation of the process and the employee can track the progress if they wish
- That appropriate solutions will be supplied
- That the issue will be closed in a timely manner
- Provide a method of complaining that allows an employee to notify someone other than their immediate supervisor, like:
- An anonymous employee hotline
- Direct written or oral communication with a company representative
- An ombudsperson
- Notify employees that they can contact the EEOC to lodge complaints if they need to.
- Tells supervisors that they must immediately report misconduct complaints to the designated company representative. This allows the company to try to investigate and resolve the complaint internally.
- Assures employees that the investigation will be fair and give all parties due process and examine the evidence before reaching a conclusion.
- Informs employees that while the employer will try to keep matters confidential, the course of an investigation may affect confidentiality.
- Indicate that if the investigation uncovers misconduct, that the employer will take appropriate action.
- Inform employees of their right to not be retaliated against because they lodged a complaint or assisted a workplace investigation.
The employer must ensure all employees are given a copy of the policy in a way that lets them know that all employees have seen and understood the policy. This can be done through hard copy or email with an acknowledgement form the employee must sign and return or on the company intranet allowing the employer to track which employees have not read the policy. Alternatively, the employer may make the policy a part of orientation or training.
If the workforce at a particular premises or facility has more than 10% of employees that speak another language as their first language, then the policy must be translated into that language. If there are multiple languages that are spoken as first languages for 10% or more of the workforce, then the policy must be translated into all of those languages.
The purpose of these laws and regulations is to ensure that all employees are given a safe work environment. By training supervisors to know their legal responsibilities towards employees and know what to do if they witness harassment or discrimination or receive a complaint, then both employees and employers are safeguarded. The materials discussed in this article: employment policies, training proof, and documentation of complaint investigations will be discovered in legal procedures. They can either act as evidence that the employer was following the law or not. If an employer is found to not have complied with legal requirements, then they will be more liable for the harassment, discrimination, or retaliation.
These materials will also determine the supervisor’s understanding of harassment and discrimination. By retaining all the training materials, an employer can see how a supervisor answered questions that posed a hypothetical. It will show how the supervisor is likely to respond to complaints and if they understand what types of conduct fall under the terms of discrimination and harassment. These materials will show either that the supervisor was not trained properly by the employer or that they understood that harassment or discrimination occurred and failed to act appropriately as they were trained to do.
If an employer does not provide appropriate anti-discrimination and harassment training to its managers and supervisors, and if they do not follow through in the right way, then the supervisor is not individually liable. If the employer did take the correct steps and it can be proved that the supervisor still engaged in harassment, then the supervisor is considered individually liable.
Learn more about: Business | Corporate | Employment
See all articles: Business | Corporate | Employment