Ethics Governance
Ethics & Governance - Resources and Articles |
| Articles indexes: a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m | n | o | p | q | r | s | t | u | v | w | x | y | z | other | |
|
|
| Article - Abstract. To view full article click on the article title. | |
Corporate Compliance Programs and Recent Discrimination Cases (Ethikos) Corporate Compliance Programs and Recent Discrimination Cases (Ethikos) July/August 2000 - By Rebecca Walker. What We Can Learn About Compliance Programs From Recent Employment Discrimination CasesIn 1998 and 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court issued three decisions concerning the vicarious liability of employers for employment discrimination in which the Court for the first time articulated affirmative defenses to certain types of liability based on the existence of an effective corporate compliance program. The task then fell to the lower courts to determine what is required to satisfy the elements of those defenses. They have begun to do so, and the cases that follow from that mandate contain valuable information concerning what the courts regard as important and effective elements of compliance programs.The Supreme Court rulesIn the 1998 twin cases of Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, the Supreme Court held that an employer may avoid liability for sexual harassment claims where no tangible adverse employment action has been taken against the plaintiff if the company can prove that (1) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or otherwise to avoid harm. In its 1999 decision in Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n., 527 U.S. 526, the Supreme Court held that an employer will not be liable for punitive damages in a Title VII action where the employment decisions at issue are contrary to the employer’s good faith efforts to comply with Title VII. An employer may thus avoid punitive damages in a Title VII action if the employer implemented an effective compliance program prior to the misconduct at issue.The lower court applications of Ellerth, Faragher, and Kolstad provide much-needed (and, in many instances, surprisingly detailed) guidance to companies interested in implementing new or improving existing compliance programs. Full Article: http://www.singerpubs.com/ethikos/html/discrimination.html |
|
2006 Ethics-Governance.com |
|||