Sentences with phrase «liable for harassment»

(i) harassment will no longer have to be «on the ground of» sex, but merely «related to» it; (ii) harassment will apply to a witness of the opposite sex to the recipient of the behaviour; (iii) an employer will be liable for harassment for failing to take reasonable steps to protect an employee from repeated harassment by third parties; (iv) pregnancy or maternity leave discrimination will no longer require a comparator; (vi) it will be contrary to the Act to deprive a woman of non-contractual bonuses in respect of the two - week period of compulsory maternity leave; and (vii) the same claims of discrimination in relation to terms and conditions of employment will be available in relation to additional maternity leave as in relation to ordinary maternity leave.

This terminology stems from Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas» NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34, [2006] 4 All ER 395, in which the House of Lords held that employers could be liable for harassment committed by their employees in breach of PHA 1997.

To what extent can employers be held liable for harassment caused to their employees by third parties?

The rules prohibit secret harassment settlements and require government officials found liable for harassment to pay the cost of their settlements.

Members of Congress found personally liable for harassment or discrimination will be responsible for paying the cost of a settlement and it must be approved by the Senate or House Ethics Committee.

Now, the California legislature will consider a bill that would add the word «investor» to a list a list of professionals who can be held liable for harassment.

Not exact matches

The final deal includes a provision extending protections to independent contractors, consultants and other non-employees in a given workplace, making an employer liable for sexual harassment against them.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed late last week to step into the contentious legal debate over when school districts may be held liable for sexual harassment of students.

The family filed a lawsuit seeking to hold the 789 - student Lago Vista school district liable for the girl's alleged sexual harassment under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Moreover, schools will be held liable «only for harassment that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim's access to an educational opportunity or benefit.»

But on the opening day of its new term, the high court let stand a federal appeals court ruling that said districts in most instances can not be held liable for so - called peer harassment under Title IX of...

The rulings held that school districts may be held liable for the sexual harassment of students by school employees or by other students.

Peer sexual harassment is essentially the companion issue to the high court's ruling in June that set a new standard for holding districts liable for a teacher's sexual harassment of a student.

At stake in the case of Doe v. Board of Education of Prince George's County was the standard by which school districts could be held liable for monetary damages under Title IX [1] in cases of alleged student - on - student harassment.

In Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Court ruled that schools were not liable for damages in sexual harassment cases unless they displayed «deliberate indifference.»

the Court ruled that schools were not liable for damages in sexual harassment cases unless they displayed «deliberate indifference.»

To prevent being found liable once a case for workplace harassment has been proven, the employer must show he either did everything that he or she could do, or it was not reasonable to do anything else.

Employers are liable for acts of sexual and other harassment carried out by their employees in the course of their employment.

Employers can be liable for discrimination and harassment by their employees, unless they take such steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent it taking place.

if the employer would have been liable to the plaintiff for sexually harassment, he should not avoid liability out of fear that he was going to harass her

If you are wrongfully terminated or even demoted from your job as a result of reporting sexual harassment in your workplace, your employer could be liable for retaliation.

The memo will therefore be a huge concern for Google, particularly as colleagues who are offended by it could claim harassment and Google could be held liable unless they can show they took reasonable steps to prevent harassment occurring.

«Disagreeing with the trial court's grant of summary judgment, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that 3 incidents over two years, combined with other testimony showing continuing problems in the workplace, is enough to require a jury [to] sort out whether a restaurant should be held liable for sexual harassment...»

A supervisor who neglects to follow up on a complaint of sexual harassment may be liable under the Alberta Human Rights Act for failing to take prompt and appropriate action.

Decision - makers that have found employers liable for workplace sexual harassment haven't hesitated to award the victimized employee financial compensation.

Morris was also held to be liable under the Code for breaching the plaintiff's rights to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race or sex (section 5 (1)-RRB-; to freedom from harassment in the workplace because of race (section 5 (2)-RRB-; and to freedom from harassment in the workplace because of sex (section 7 (2)-RRB-.

The law is absolutely clear that an employer is not only liable for its own acts of discrimination or harassment, but also for those of its agents and employees, and that it can also be liable for the acts of third parties such as customers.

They said that the legislation deliberately gave protection only from acts by the employer and did not cover acts by fellow employees (unlike, for example, the laws on discriminatory harassment where the individual harasser can also be liable).

A federal appellate court has determined that a real estate brokerage can be liable for the sexual harassment of a salesperson that the brokerage had treated like an independent contractor.