Retaliation: Agency theory and gaps in the law

Public Personnel Management

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 39-48

  Crockett, Richard W ^a   Gilmere, Julie A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033095707     PISSN: 00910260     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009102609902800104     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. 1 Elsa Kircher Cole, ed., Sexual Harassment on Campus: A Legal Compendium, second edition, Washington, D.C.; 1990, p.7.
2. 2 Modern Tort Law: Liability and Litigation, Vol. 2 sec 27.31
3. 3 John C. Domino, Sexual Harassment and the Courts, New York: Harper Collins, 1995, p. 7.
4. 4 Modern Tort Law: Liability and Litigation, Vol. 2 sec 27.31
5. 5 Domino, Sexual Harassment and the Courts, New York: Harper Collins, 1995.
6. 6 477 US 57, 91 L Ed 2nd 49, 106 S Ct 2399 (1986)
7. 7 Supra at p. 63.
8. 8 Supra.
9. 9 Supra.
10. 10 Supra.
11. 11 753 F.2nd 141 (1985)
12. 12 Supra, at 151.
13. 13 Jeppson v. Wunnicke 611 F Supp. 78 (D.C. Alaska 1985).
14. 14 Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F 2d 897 (1982).
15. 15 Katz v. Dole 709 F2d 251 (CA4 1983).
16. 16 Bundy v. Jackson 641 F2D 934 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
17. 17 Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F 2d 897 (1982). The elements given in Henson for a hostile work environment case of sexual harassment include (1) The employee must belong to a group which Title VII protects. (2) The employee must have experienced sexual harassment. (3) The harassment must have been based on sex. (4) The harassment must have affected a "term, condition, or privilege" of employment, creating an abusive environment. (5) The employee must show that the employer "knew or should have known" of the sexually hostile environment.
18. 18 Supra at p. 910.
19. 19 Katz v. Dole 709 F2d 251 (CA4 1983).
20. 20 Katz at 255 citing Henson at 905, "no effectual action"; see also Barret v. National Bank of Omaha 726 F2d. 426 (8th Cir. 1984); and in Heelan v. Johns-Mannville Corporation, 451F. Supp. 1382, 1390 (d. Colo. 1978),"If the employer fails to respond to a valid complaint, it effectively condones illegal acts."
21. 21 http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/.97-282.html
22. 22 http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/97-569.html
23. 23 Supra. 97-569, p.14.
24. 24 Supra. 97-569, p.14
25. 25 Supra. 97-569, p.14.
26. 26 Supra. 97-569, p.14.
27. 27 Supra. 97-569, p. 11.
28. 28 Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 US No. 96-1866, (1998).
29. 29 American Jurisprudence, 45A AmJur 2D Sec 247-250, Lawyer's Cooperative Publishing Company, New York, New York.
30. 30 Title VII cited above.
31. 31 Jenkins v Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. 646 F Supp. 1274 E.D. Tex. 1986, citing Whatley v Metropolitan Atlanta Transit, 632 F.2d 1325 [5th Cir. 1980]
32. 32 These are our conclusions drawn from the findings in Jenkins and Whatley.
33. 33 Meritor. Supra.
34. 34 EEOC Compliance Manual, 614:0035 p. 161; Commission Decision No. YME9-068, [1973] 6039; See also unpublished Commission Decision 71-934 [1971].
35. 34 EEOC Compliance Manual, 614:0035 p. 161; Commission Decision No. YME9-068, [1973] 6039; See also unpublished Commission Decision 71-934 [1971].
36. 34 EEOC Compliance Manual, 614:0035 p. 161; Commission Decision No. YME9-068, [1973] 6039; See also unpublished Commission Decision 71-934 [1971].
37. 35 Vida Cross v. Emanuel Cleaver II, et al. No. 97-3441, Filed April 10, 1998, p. 34.
38. 36 Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA] and Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA].
39. 37 (EEOC v Virginia Carolina Veneer Corp.[19880, WD Va] 495 F Supp 775j 27 BNA FEO Cas 340m 24 CCG EOD 31191, app dismd (CA4) 652 F2d 380, 30 BNA FEP Cas 1049, 26 CCH EPD 31908; EEOC Decision No. 74-77 [1974], 8 BNA FEP Cas 558, CCH EEOC Dec 6417.)
40. 38 (For documentation see Appendix A.)
41. 39 See Richard W. Crockett and Jaclyn M. Svoboda, "Subculture Roleover: The Anatomy of an Hostile Environment," Initiatives, Special Issue: Sexual Harassment Part I, Vol 57, No 2 [1996])
42. 40 Section 614-Retaliation, Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, (April, 1988), pp. 125-161.
43. 41 Gifford v. Atchison T.&S.F.R. Co. [1982, Ca9] 685 F2nd 1149, 34 BNA FEP Cas 240, 29 BNA FEP Cas 1345, 30 CCH EPD 33118.