This requirement exists (under federal law, thanks to the U.S. Here's how: The courts determine it by looking at whether the harassment was "severe" - meaning bad - or "pervasive" - meaning frequent. So, how is a court to determine whether the "conduct or communication" had the "purpose or effect" of "substantially interfering" with the plaintiff's employment or created an "intimidating, hostile, or offensive" environment? I wish there were a better way to express the legal standard, but this is the one that just about everybody uses. , or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment. (3) that conduct or communication has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's employment. In other words, the statute has three "legalistic" definitions, including one for what we know as "hostile work environment": Sexual harassment" includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexually motivated physical contact or other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature when: Minnesota's current statute more or less tracks the federal definition of unlawful harassment.
I hope it fails, and if it succeeds, I hope the other 49 states have the good sense not to follow Minnesota's lead. Legislation is pending in Minnesota ( House File 4459) that would expressly remove the "severe or pervasive" requirement for a sexual harassment claim under the state Human Rights Act.Īccording to news reports, the measure has bipartisan support in the state legislature, although the Chamber of Commerce hasn't taken a position yet.
0 kommentar(er)
