Illinois Social Media Law, Conservative News, Chicago & National Politics
Vote Trump 2016 !
Trump 2016
Showing posts with label Sexual Harassment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexual Harassment. Show all posts
Friday, April 24, 2015
Saturday, September 06, 2014
Illinois Protecting Interns From Sexual Harassment
By Zach Schonfeld
| 9/5/14 at 11:12 AM
Illinois Is Now One of the Only States Protecting Interns From Sexual Harassment
Illinois has become one of the only states to pass legislation protecting unpaid interns from sexual harassment in the workplace.
A new bill, signed into law last week by Governor Patrick Quinn, amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to include “unpaid intern” in its definition of an “employee.” That gives unpaid workers legal recourse to file suit in instances of sexual harassment or discrimination—a right they could otherwise be legally denied in favor of paid employees.
“Because unpaid internships are a widespread form of employment for young professionals, it is bewildering to think that laws in Illinois do not protect the unpaid intern,” wrote state Representative Maria A. Berrios in a statement provided to Newsweek. “Every person has the right to feel safe and secure in their workplace, and with this new law, unpaid interns will have the same protections as other employees to seek justice in cases of sexual harassment.
TweetMe Please
Friday, June 06, 2014
Friday, May 16, 2014
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Illinois bartender serves sexual harassment suit to employer
October 15, 2013
A sexual harassment lawsuit may not have been what a female bartender’s boss ordered, but that is what she served him after he and a female patron engaged in suggestive behavior and encouraged her to join in.
http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Discrimination/Sexual-Harassment/Illinois-bartender-serves-sexual-harassment-suit-t
Illinois bartender serves sexual harassment suit to employer
A sexual harassment lawsuit may not have been what a female bartender’s boss ordered, but that is what she served him after he and a female patron engaged in suggestive behavior and encouraged her to join in.http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Discrimination/Sexual-Harassment/Illinois-bartender-serves-sexual-harassment-suit-t
Friday, October 11, 2013
LARRY V. HALL, JR. v. VILLAGE OF FLOSSMOOR, ILLINOIS - Sexual MisConduct, Discrimination, Civil Rights
Chicago Police Department Offiers have a Motto of "We Serve and Protect". This is not shared by all members of our suburban departments.
Larry Hall was fired from his job as a police officer in the Village of Flossmoor, Illinois, after having sex in a patrol car while on duty and then lying to superiors about the encounters. Hall is African American and claims in this employment-discrimination suit that the Village punished him more harshly than white officers caught engaging in misconduct. The district court granted summary judgment for the Village. The Court affirmed.
Hall joined the police force in 2004 and before this case had been disciplined only onc. Hall performed standard patrol duties and worked in the police department's tactical and juvenile units.
Hall also was a "liaison officer" at the local high school, and in that role he provided security. He began socializing with a female student, shortly after she graduated, the two began a sporadic affair that lasted two years. The young woman's father discovered the affair and complained to Hall's superiors in 2009. The police department investigated and concluded that Hall, who was married and in his 30s, did not have sex with the woman until she had turned 18 and was out of school. Multiple witnesses reported that the two had sex in a police vehicle. Investigators also discovered that Hall had used the department's computer system to send vulgar and disrespectful instant messages to coworkers. He referred to a sergeant named Clint as "clintoris," reported that another officer had been under the police chief's desk making "gargling" sounds, and called Village residents "Flossmorons." Department policy limits use of instant-messaging terminals to police business and prohibits misusing the system.
After an investigation, police chief William Miller concluded with the Village manager that Hall should be fired. In a November 2009 letter to Hall explaining the decision, Miller concluded that he had engaged in unbecoming conduct, neglect of duty, insubordination, and misuse of the instant-messaging system. Miller also said that Hall had violated department rules
Hall was represented by counsel when he sued the Village in August 2011 claiming that he was denied promotion to "field training officer" and later fired because of his race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. (Hall's complaint also includes claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983. The substantive standards governing Title VII apply equally to these provisions. SeeHumphries v. CBOCS West, Inc., 474 F.3d 387, 403-04 (7th Cir. 2007); Davis v. Wisc. Dep't of Corr., 445 F.3d 971, 976 (7th Cir. 2006).) At summary judgment Hall proceeded under the indirect method of proof, see McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973), but in opposing the Village's motion he relied entirely on his own deposition.
The district court concluded that the claims for failure to promote were untimely, and that Hall had failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination in the Village's decision to fire him. Pro se, Hall challenged the grant of summary judgment for the Village but relied principally on a lengthy appendix filled with documents not discussed or, for some, even presented in the district court. These submissions came too late to help Hall's case, since the Court's review was limited to the evidence properly before the district court. See, e.g., Blue v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 596 (7th Cir. 2012);Hernandez v. HCH Miller Park Joint Venture, 418 F.3d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2005). The district court properly exercised its considerable discretion in enforcing Local Rule 56.1,see, e.g., Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., 401 F.3d 803, 809-10 (7th Cir. 2005);Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 817-18 (7th Cir. 2004), and Hall did not contend otherwise.
Larry Hall was fired from his job as a police officer in the Village of Flossmoor, Illinois, after having sex in a patrol car while on duty and then lying to superiors about the encounters. Hall is African American and claims in this employment-discrimination suit that the Village punished him more harshly than white officers caught engaging in misconduct. The district court granted summary judgment for the Village. The Court affirmed.
Hall joined the police force in 2004 and before this case had been disciplined only onc. Hall performed standard patrol duties and worked in the police department's tactical and juvenile units.
Hall also was a "liaison officer" at the local high school, and in that role he provided security. He began socializing with a female student, shortly after she graduated, the two began a sporadic affair that lasted two years. The young woman's father discovered the affair and complained to Hall's superiors in 2009. The police department investigated and concluded that Hall, who was married and in his 30s, did not have sex with the woman until she had turned 18 and was out of school. Multiple witnesses reported that the two had sex in a police vehicle. Investigators also discovered that Hall had used the department's computer system to send vulgar and disrespectful instant messages to coworkers. He referred to a sergeant named Clint as "clintoris," reported that another officer had been under the police chief's desk making "gargling" sounds, and called Village residents "Flossmorons." Department policy limits use of instant-messaging terminals to police business and prohibits misusing the system.
After an investigation, police chief William Miller concluded with the Village manager that Hall should be fired. In a November 2009 letter to Hall explaining the decision, Miller concluded that he had engaged in unbecoming conduct, neglect of duty, insubordination, and misuse of the instant-messaging system. Miller also said that Hall had violated department rules
Hall was represented by counsel when he sued the Village in August 2011 claiming that he was denied promotion to "field training officer" and later fired because of his race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. (Hall's complaint also includes claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983. The substantive standards governing Title VII apply equally to these provisions. SeeHumphries v. CBOCS West, Inc., 474 F.3d 387, 403-04 (7th Cir. 2007); Davis v. Wisc. Dep't of Corr., 445 F.3d 971, 976 (7th Cir. 2006).) At summary judgment Hall proceeded under the indirect method of proof, see McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973), but in opposing the Village's motion he relied entirely on his own deposition.
The district court concluded that the claims for failure to promote were untimely, and that Hall had failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination in the Village's decision to fire him. Pro se, Hall challenged the grant of summary judgment for the Village but relied principally on a lengthy appendix filled with documents not discussed or, for some, even presented in the district court. These submissions came too late to help Hall's case, since the Court's review was limited to the evidence properly before the district court. See, e.g., Blue v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 596 (7th Cir. 2012);Hernandez v. HCH Miller Park Joint Venture, 418 F.3d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2005). The district court properly exercised its considerable discretion in enforcing Local Rule 56.1,see, e.g., Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., 401 F.3d 803, 809-10 (7th Cir. 2005);Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 817-18 (7th Cir. 2004), and Hall did not contend otherwise.
Hall insisted on appeal that Heward also lied about his misconduct, but there was no competent evidence supporting his contention. At his deposition Hall testified that he had heard from others that Heward had lied, but this inadmissible hearsay could not defeat a motion for summary judgment. See Luster, 652 F.3d at 731 & n.2; Adams, 324 F.3d at 939-40. Moreover, Hall did not direct the district court to this portion of the deposition transcript, so the court was not required to (and did not) consider it. SeeN.D. ILL. R. 56.1(b)(3)(C); F.T.C. v. Bay Area Bus. Council, Inc., 423 F.3d 627, 634 (7th Cir. 2005).
Hall also argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his claims that the Village discriminated against him by failing to promote him to a field training officer position. Hall offered no evidence from which a jury could conclude that the Village had a policy or custom of discriminatory promotions among its police officers. See Monell v. New York Dep't of Social Services,436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Smith v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trustees, 165 F.3d 1142, 1148-49 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that Monell applies to § 1981 suits).
The Court reviewed Hall's other arguments and concluded that none has merit. Accordingly,
The Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the district court.
LARRY V. HALL, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VILLAGE OF FLOSSMOOR, ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-3913.
Submitted April 5, 2013.[*]
Decided April 8, 2013.
Hall also argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his claims that the Village discriminated against him by failing to promote him to a field training officer position. Hall offered no evidence from which a jury could conclude that the Village had a policy or custom of discriminatory promotions among its police officers. See Monell v. New York Dep't of Social Services,436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Smith v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trustees, 165 F.3d 1142, 1148-49 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that Monell applies to § 1981 suits).
The Court reviewed Hall's other arguments and concluded that none has merit. Accordingly,
The Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the district court.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=837051386056091695&q=%22instant+messaging%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,14,112,127,268,269,270,271,272,314,315,331,332,333,334,335,377,378&as_ylo=2013, last visited 10/11/2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)