Introduction

In this week’s lecture, students will learn about state and federal laws aimed at
combating discrimination and sexual harassment. With the MeToo Movement has come
recognition that much more needs to be done to secure the workplace from unwanted
sexual advances and discriminatory behaviors. Federal case law and statutes will be of
primary focus as they have set the standard upon which all other laws, including state
case law and statues, are founded upon when addressing these concerns. Students will
also read about the value of employer investigations into allegations of discrimination
and harassment, including the necessity to train employees in sexual harassment
prevention and the creation of Zero-Tolerance policies.
It is unfortunate that at this time in US history, we are still having to address abuses and
inequalities in the workplace. Despite numerous court decisions and legislative acts
designed to promote a fair and safe working environment, discrimination and sexual
harassment are still top-level concerns for businesses to contend with. Interestingly,
many corporations and government entities require annual anti-discrimination and
anti-sexual harassment training. Yet, the offenses continue. Corporate social
responsibility has never been higher, nor public outcry been greater as we hear daily of
new allegations and charges against CEOs and executives for their ugly conduct.
Interestingly, the ethical principle of Utilitarianism has its challenges when discussing
workplace discrimination and sexual harassment. At its most basic explanation, right
from wrong is determined by focusing on the outcomes. By this criterion, actions
considered by themselves are morally neutral—it all depends on their consequences as to
whether they are good or bad and thus, apart from consideration of such consequences,
actions are neither blameworthy nor praiseworthy.
In this regard, one cannot say that discrimination and sexual harassment are not
blameworthy.
As such, the other ethical principles seem more apt for application in our analysis of
discrimination and sexual harassment. The Rights is an ethical action is one in which
the actor does not infringe upon the rights of others. The Fairness/Justice Theory holds
that ethical actions should aim to treat all human beings equally. The Common Good
theory advocates for the safeguard of our community for the good of all or the Virtue
Theory that asks for us to self-inquire "What kind of person will I become if I do this
act?"
As we begin to discuss discrimination and sexual harassment, take a look at this 3:46
minute video on How The #MeToo Movement Exposes The Failure Of HR by NBC
News. While watching the video, keep in mind the following points:
How The #MeToo Movement Exposes the Failure Of HR
BUSS213-Week 4 lecture- Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 2

 Consider how a company’s human resource department approaches allegations

of discrimination and sexual harassment.
 Reflect on how human resources training on preventing sexual harassment in
effect defend the company.
 Assess whose interest’s human resources protects.
This video provides a critical overview of the role performed by human resource
managers in addressing claims of harassment. In this regard, human resources must
take such allegations seriously with an intent to take action to resolve existing
problems. Despite the efforts to implement trainings generally given to low level
employees, such programs are based upon scenarios that are not happening in the
current workplace. What the training does accomplish in effect is to create a paper trail
that the company can use as evidence that they did their part by conducting employee
training. Yet, the business culture at the top can go unchanged. As such, this begs the
question of whose interests does a human resource department protect? The argument
can be that human resources is there to protect the high-level executives and the
company.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s produced many landmark decisions by the US
Supreme Court including the enactment of progressive federal laws aimed at
eliminating discrimination in all its forms.
One such legislative enactment was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Act
prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin. The US Supreme Court case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57
(1986) would interpret sexual harassment as falling under the scope of sex
discrimination.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is the federal
administrative agency with jurisdiction to enforce Title VII.
The Society for Human Resource Management notes (Piazza, 2019):
Employees who bring Title VII and certain other discrimination claims are
required under federal law to file a charge with the EEOC within 180 calendar
days from the day of the incident—though the filing deadline is extended to 300
calendar days if a state or local agency has a parallel anti-discrimination law. In
general, employees must allow the EEOC 180 days to resolve the charge before
filing a claim in court, but in some cases the EEOC may issue a "right to sue"
letter in less time.
BUSS213-Week 4 lecture- Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 3

This requirement to allow the EEOC to investigate the allegation before a claim can be
filed in court is known as the Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy. Once the EEOC
has decided that they cannot make a decision as to fault or if the EEOC declines to
further investigate, the EEOC will issue the aggrieved employee a Right to Sue Letter.
This letter is then attached to the civil lawsuit complaint that the Plaintiff files. It
functions as proof that the Plaintiff went through the administrative remedy process.
Failure to exhaust the administrative remedy procedure may preclude the employee
from suing on the claim involved.
Note that many states have created their own set of anti-discrimination and anti-sexual
harassment laws which likewise have an Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy
component. Similarly, the state agency in charge of these claims will issue a Right to Sue
letter that permits the aggrieved employee to file any state civil claims against the
employer.
Now that we have need to exhaust administrative remedies, let us take a quick break
and review the material with an ungraded knowledge check.
Check Your Knowledge
True or False: Employees must allow the EEOC 180 days to resolve the charge before
filing a claim in court.

Answer: True. The EEOC must be afforded time to investigate the alleged claim.

Multiple Choice: What document is needed for an aggrieved employee to show the
court that the administrative remedy process has been followed?
A) Right to Sue Letter
B) Declaration
C) Subpoena
D) Complaint
Answer: ‘A’. The Right to Sue Letter acts as proof that the employee has gone exhausted
existing administrative procedures.
True or False: Courts do not require proof of the employee’s exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
Answer. False. Courts require that a Plaintiff presents evidence at the time of filing a
civil complaint that a Right to Sue letter has been issued by either the EEOC or similar
state agency.

Discrimination
BUSS213-Week 4 lecture- Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 4

Title VII actions of adverse employment actions can include termination, failing or
refusing to hire; demotions or "otherwise discriminating with respect to compensation,
terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" 42 USCA § 2000e-2(a)(1).
Yet, how can it be proven that an employer intentionally discriminated against an
employee? Could it be that the terminated employee truly had poor performance and
therefore the termination or adverse employment action was justified? Or, was there
really something else going on that would fall under a Title VII violation?
In most employment discrimination cases, the employee has no direct evidence
confirming that the employer intended to discriminate unlawfully. Direct evidence
could come in the form of language used by the employer in a memo or email. Maybe, a
supervisor made a statement in the employee’s presence that was witnessed by co-
workers.
However, evidence of discrimination can be logically inferred circumstantial evidence
because the employer has a pattern and practice of making certain decisions which are
impacting a specific group of employees because of race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin.
Still, the challenge remains, what is the standard of the burden of proof that the
aggrieved employee needs to establish and what burden of proof can the employer
offer as a defense?
In the famous United States Supreme Court case of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973), the Supreme Court created a 4-part test to resolve this issue.
The McDonnell Douglas test in employment discrimination cases reads as follows:
(1) the employee is a member of a Title VII protected group (race, gender,
religion, sex, national origin);
(2) he or she applied and was qualified for the position sought (satisfying the
employer's job requirements);
(3) the job was not offered to him or her; and
(4) the employer continued to seek applicants with similar qualifications.
If the employee can prove these four elements, the employer must show a legitimate
lawful reason why the individual was not hired. The employee still may prevail if he or
she discredits the employer's asserted reason for not hiring him or her.
Unfortunately, it can happen that when an employee complains of negative treatment,
the employer will retaliate by causing some adverse employment action. Such a
response by the employer is known as Retaliation and it is a violation of Title VII.
BUSS213-Week 4 lecture- Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 5

Under Title VII, An employer (or other covered entity) may not take any adverse
employment action against an employee who has (i) opposed any practice made
unlawful by Title VII; or (ii) made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any
manner in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII (42 USCA § 2000e-
3(a)).
Note that many states have enacted their own version of Title VII anti-discrimination
laws which are more encompassing than federal law. Protected categories at the state
level include those with physical/medical disabilities, sexual orientation, and age just to
name a few.
Note too that in very rare circumstances a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification
exception exists that will allow some types of discrimination that is otherwise
prohibited under Title VII.

For further analysis of the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception, take a look
at this 3:24 minute video on BFOQ: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification by Gregg
Learning. While watching the video, keep in mind the following points:
BFOQ: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification

 Consider how religion can be a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification

 Reflect on how race or color are never a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification
 Assess what is needed to prove that a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exits
This video provides a review of the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ)
exception to Title VII protections. The elements needed to be proved by an employer
that such an exception exits are identified and how a BFOQ can be applied to religion is
explained. For example, the job candidate for a Lutheran minister position is restricted
to those of the Lutheran faith. Such a restriction makes logical sense. However, race or
color are never a Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications as this would run contrary to
the purpose of our civil right laws. To prove what is required for a BFOQ exception to
exist, the employer must show a direct relationship between the protected trait and the
ability to perform the duties of the job.
Now that we have analyzed discrimination in the workplace, let us take a quick break
and review the material with an ungraded knowledge check.
Check Your Knowledge
True or False: In most employment discrimination cases, the employee has no direct
evidence confirming that the employer intended to discriminate unlawfully.
BUSS213-Week 4 lecture- Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 6

Answer: True. In the majority of discrimination cases, the employee only has
circumstantial evidence to support the allegations.

True or False: Discrimination can be logically inferred circumstantial evidence because

the employer has a pattern and practice of making certain decisions which are
impacting a specific group of employees because of race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin.

Answer: True. Courts will examine the past history of the employer’s decision-making
practices.

Multiple Choice: When an employer takes an adverse employment action against an

employee for complaining about discrimination or sexual harassment, this is known as .
..

A) Retaliation
B) Complaint
C) Right to Sue Letter
D) None of the above

Answer: ‘A’. Retaliation happens when the employer causes an adverse employment
actions, like a demotion or termination, to an employee who has complained of sexual
harassment or another wrongful act that happened at the workplace.

Sexual Harassment

Federal law prohibiting harassment is derived basically from Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which makes it unlawful for an employer "to discriminate against any
individual with respect to terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of such
individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" (42 USCA § 2000e-2(a)(1)).

Courts have interpreted Title VII language to mean that Sexual harassment is actionable
as "discrimination" on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII if it is "so severe or
pervasive as to alter the conditions of (the victim's) employment and create an abusive
working environment." Clark Co. School Dist. v. Breeden (2001) 532 U.S. 268, 270, 121
S.Ct. 1508, 1509. The concept of retaliation for lodging complaints also applies to sexual
harassment cases.

Sexual harassment claims generally happen because of two circumstances commonly

referred to as quid pro quo; or hostile work environment.
BUSS213-Week 4 lecture- Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 7

In a "quid pro quo" case, the employer subjects the employee to sexually offensive
conduct in return for the employer granting or denying of job benefits, such as getting
or retaining a job, or receiving a favorable performance review or promotions.

In a “hostile work environment” case, the employer has allowed workplace

environment to be one where employees are exposed to verbal harassment (sexually
offensive comments, jokes, or asking questions about one’s personal relationships),
physical harassment (unwanted touching or physical assault), and visual harassment
(lewd gestures or derogatory drawings) such that the working conditions unreasonably
interfere with the employee’s ability to do their job.

Now that we have covered the topic of sexual harassment, let us take a quick break and
review the material with an ungraded knowledge check.
Check Your Knowledge
True or False: Federal law prohibiting harassment is derived basically from Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Answer: True. Courts have interpreted Title VII language to mean that Sexual
harassment is actionable as "discrimination" on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII if
it is so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of (the victim's) employment and
create an abusive working environment.

True or False: Quid pro quo is the only form of sexual harassment.

Answer: False. Quid pro quo and hostile work environment are the two ways that
sexual harassment occurs in the workplace.

Fill-In the Gap: Sexually offensive comments and jokes are a form of

A) sexual harassment
B) humor
C) communication
D) none of the above

Answer: ‘A’. Sexual comments and jokes create a hostile work environment.

Investigations

When an allegation of discrimination or sexual harassment happens, the employer

needs to immediately conduct a fair and thorough investigation. In essence, an
employer has to have an investigation procedure that adheres to the spirit of Due
Process.
BUSS213-Week 4 lecture- Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 8

Due Process is the keystone of our American legal system. In the workplace, Due
Process assures that one will be accorded the right to be heard whether they have a
complaint or if they have been accused of misconduct. If an investigation is conducted
to assess the accusation, Due Process demands that the investigative process be
conducted without bias but in line with established company policies that are objective
and will lead to a just result.
In addition to Due Process, employer’s must be sensitive to the trauma that the
aggrieved employee is experiencing. Sexual harassment scenarios are often
embarrassing to openly discuss. The situation itself can be very intimidating as the
aggrieved employee can fear for their personal safety and professional reputation. This
is especially true where the harasser is the CEO or a high-level executive. No one wants
their professional reputation to be tarnished out of retaliation for bringing a sexual
harassment claim against an employer.
To protect the credibility of the process, outside investigators are often brought in to
conduct the investigations. This might prove to be particularly helpful where the
accused has a position of authority over those in the Human Resource department.
Note too that a neutral investigator can make a powerful witness to establish that the
company acted in good faith to investigate and resolve the matter. Moreover, taking a
professional approach is investigating the claims, shows the employees that the
company takes such allegations seriously.
Some practical investigation planning is offered below (Meinert, 2018):
1. Ask open-ended questions to ensure that you have a full picture of events.
2. Gather evidence that might support or negate the complaint.
3. Check past performance evaluations and prior complaints to consider
whether the person making the allegation might be seeking retribution for a
poor evaluation.
4. Document every step. Take careful notes throughout the interviews.
5. Encourage confidentiality by asking those interviewed to keep the
conversations confidential.
6. In writing, document the investigation process, findings, recommendations
and any disciplinary action imposed, as well as any corrective and preventive
action.
Now that we have evaluated the necessity of investigating allegations of sexual
harassment, let us take a quick break and review the material with an ungraded
knowledge check.
Check Your Knowledge
True or False: When investigating a sexual harassment claim, employer’s must be
sensitive to the trauma that the aggrieved employee is experiencing.
BUSS213-Week 4 lecture- Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 9

Answer: True. The aggrieved employee is experiencing a range of emotions stemming

from the incident.

True or False: Due Process is required when investigating a sexual harassment claim.

Answer: True. A fair and objective investigation ensures that all parties are given an
opportunity to be heard and explain their side of the allegations.

Fill-In the Gap: are often brought in to conduct sexual harassment

investigations.
A) counselors
B) college professors
C) outside investigators
D) none of the above

Answer is ‘C’. Outside investigators will more likely be neutral and objective in their
investigation.

Training

State laws and case law decisions on the topic of discrimination and sexual harassment
are setting the standards as to what employers are required to do and likewise what
employees are not to do in their workplace actions.

In this regard, there can be many questions. How does an aggrieved employee file a
complaint? What types of conduct are specifically prohibited? What assurances are
there that the employer will objectively hear what an aggrieved employee has to say?
Will there be repercussions if a complaint is filed?

The answer to these and many other related questions come in the trainings that the
employer and/or third party human resources advisors can provide.

Nowadays, such training is not optional. Sexual harassment prevention training has
become a mandatory requirement per state laws. The exact set-up of such trainings will
vary from state-to-state. For example, New York State requires that the training (ADP,
2019):

 Include an explanation of sexual harassment consistent with guidance issued

by the New York Department of Labor in consultation with the Division of
Human Rights
 Include examples of conduct that would constitute unlawful sexual
harassment
BUSS213-Week 4 lecture- Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 10

 Include information concerning the federal and state statutory provisions

concerning sexual harassment and remedies available to victims of sexual
harassment
 Include information concerning employees' rights of redress and all available
forums for adjudicating complaints
 Include information addressing conduct by supervisors and any additional
responsibilities for such supervisors

In California, Senate Bill 1343, Employers: sexual harassment training: requirements:

An employer who employs 5 or more employees, including temporary or
seasonal employees, to has to provide at least 2 hours of sexual harassment
training to all supervisory employees and at least one hour of sexual harassment
training to all non-supervisory employees by January 1, 2020, and once every 2
years thereafter, as specified.
As can be seen, each state has devised its own legislative policies. The key point to note
is that businesses must implement such training. Failure to comply with such training
will generally trigger a civil fine. Such failure can also be an indicator that the employer
did not take sexual harassment prevention training necessary and for this reason, a
hostile work environment was allowed to fester in the workplace.
Beyond the loss of these defenses, it will be nearly impossible for any attorney, no
matter how skilled, to defend a lawsuit where an employer willfully failed to comply
with a law designed to prevent the very experience complained of by the victim in the
first instance. Imagine the opening statements at a trial (Lieb, 2019):
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the defendants actively chose to forgo training their
staff on sexual harassment prevention, as every other employer in this State is required to
do, because they clearly want to maintain a chauvinistic workplace where women are
treated as objects, not equals. Today, we ask you to teach them a lesson. We ask you to
teach all employers a lesson. Women matter. Women have rights. The workplace must be
safe. The Labor Law insists that it is. We ask you to teach the defendants a lesson that
violating the law is not a choice. New York State introduced Labor Law 201-g to prevent
the very harassment that occurred to the Plaintiff. No, the defendants did not have a
sexual harassment prevention policy to tell everyone what behavior was unacceptable in
the workplace although they were required to have such a policy. No, the defendants
did not have a sexual harassment prevention training to clarify what behavior was
unacceptable in the workplace although they were required to have such a training. No,
the defendants did not have a sexual harassment prevention complaint form to empower
victims to protect themselves from unacceptable harassment occurring in the workplace
although they were required to have such a complaint form. These defendants actively
chose to violate the laws of this State and now they must answer. Some people only
BUSS213-Week 4 lecture- Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 11

understand rules when they are forced to write a check. We ask you to teach them the
rules. These defendants need to learn the rules about sexual harassment in the workplace.
Sexual harassment will not be tolerated.
Now that we have covered the issue of sexual harassment prevention training, let us
take a quick break and review the material with an ungraded knowledge check.
Check Your Knowledge
True or False: Sexual harassment prevention training has become a mandatory
requirement per state laws.

Answer: True. The mandate for sexual harassment prevent training comes from state
law.

Multiple Choice: Failure of an employer to conduct sexual harassment prevention

training to its employees may trigger which of the following:

A) Civil fine
B) Walk out by employees
C) Reduced hires
D) None of the above

Answer: ‘A’. States can assess a civil fine against a company that fails to comply with
state laws mandating the training of employers on sexual harassment prevention.

True or False: The failure to have sexual harassment prevention training will used a fact
used by plaintiff attorneys to show the employer’s indifference to sexual harassment in
their workplace.

Answer: True. A plaintiff’s attorney will seize the opportunity to bring the lack of such
training to a jury’s attention.

Zero-Tolerance Policy
In an effort to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, many companies have
enacted Zero-Tolerance Policies such that any form of unwarranted sexual advances,
comments or conduct will not be tolerated and for which the offending employee will
be disciplined up to and including termination.
Such Zero-Tolerance Polices have become a part of the employee handbook and other
documentation that comes with employment.
The content contained in a Zero-Tolerance Policy will vary from one company to
another as legal counsel is often brought in to draft the content within this document.
BUSS213-Week 4 lecture- Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 12

With that said, there are some common ground elements that can be listed in a Zero-
Tolerance Policy.
An effective policy should do all of the following (Nolo, 2019):
 Establish that the company is committed to preventing harassment and
discrimination with a firm, clear statement that the company will not tolerate any
harassment or discrimination.
 Explain who the policy covers (race, gender, and so on) under federal and state
law.
 Inform employees of prohibited conduct such as slurs, insults, commentary,
cartoons, pictorials, or symbols that denigrate any protected status or anyone in a
protected category.
 State that discrimination is not allowed in hiring, firing, discipline, promotions,
leave, transfers, or any other aspect of employment.
 A good policy clearly states that employees can expect a workplace free of
harassment and discrimination, and that the employer will work to make sure
this happens.
 The policy should make clear that prohibited and inappropriate conduct will not
be tolerated and can result in disciplinary action, up to and including
termination.
 Include the company’s complaint procedures.
 Describe the investigation process.
 Assure confidentiality to the extent possible.
 Make clear that those who report possible violations will not be subject to
retaliation, and that retaliatory conduct of any kind will not be tolerated.

Interestingly, many high level female CEOs have commented that the well-intended
Zero-Tolerance Polices could promote a negative impact on the advancement of women
in the workplace. Women professionals are noting their exclusion from outside work
activities, like lunch and dinner, as male executives are avoiding such socialization out
of fear of being accused of sexual harassment.
Companies seeking to minimize the risk of sexual harassment or misconduct appear to
be simply minimizing contact between female employees and senior male executives
(Anderson, 2019).
More than half of the women talent and HR professionals (51%) that LinkedIn
surveyed said that having more women in a company’s leadership is an effective way
to combat harassment and study after study shows that businesses with more gender
balance in their top tier outperform those without it (Anderson, 2019).
Therefore, would it make sense to create a culture of respect between men and women
in the workplace and does a Zero-Tolerance Policy promote that goal?
BUSS213-Week 4 lecture- Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 13

If we reflect on the Utilitarian perspective of achieving the greatest good, and in this
case for both employees and company prosperity, it would appear that the dual goal of
a company is to combat sexual harassment while promoting respect between female
and male workers.
Now that we have addressed the challenges in creating a Zero-Tolerance Policy, let us
take a quick break and review the material with an ungraded knowledge check.
Check Your Knowledge
True or False: A Zero-Tolerance Policy should have a clear statement that the company
will not tolerate any harassment or discrimination.

Answer: True. The company must establish that it is committed to preventing

harassment

True or False: Some female CEOs have commented that Zero-Tolerance Policies could
have a negative impact on female employees.

Answer: True. Women professionals are noting their exclusion from outside of work
activities, like lunch and dinner, as male executives are avoiding such socialization out
of fear of being accused of sexual harassment.

Multiple Choice: A Zero-Tolerance Policy should include the following:

A) Include the company’s complaint procedures.

B) Describe the investigation process.
C) Assure confidentiality to the extent possible.
D) All of the above
Answer: ‘D’. A Zero-Tolerance policy should identify the complaint procedure so that
employees can understand what they need to do to file a complaint. Also, employers
need to inform the employees of what an investigation will entail as well as ensuring
that confidentiality will be maintained.

Weekly Recap

We have seen that federal and state legislation has been enacted to address workplace
discrimination and sexual harassment. Likewise, both federal and state case law has
followed in line to delineate how aggrieved employees can prove their claims while still
permitting the accused due process to defend against such accusations. This is of
particular importance when we consider that all allegations need to be immediately
investigated for their veracity and resolution.
In an effort to demonstrate that such conduct is not the status quo within a business, it
is also important to have a history of prevention training aimed at discrimination and
BUSS213-Week 4 lecture- Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 14

sexual harassment. Such training needs to be mandatory for all levels of employees
especially those at the executive level who are in a position of authority over human
resources.
Training however is not enough. Companies need to be firm in showing a commitment
to their employees that discrimination and sexual harassment are never acceptable or
excusable acts in the workplace. The creation of a Zero-Tolerance Policy can help to
establish that goal.

REFERENCES
ADP. (2019). HR Tip of the Week. Retrieved from
https://sbshrs.adpinfo.com/blog/am-i-required-to-provide-harassment-training-and-
other-faqs
Anderson, B. (2019, March 25). This Anti-Harassment Tactic Sets Women Back — and May Be Illegal.
LinkedIn. Retrieved from https://business.linkedin.com/talent-solutions/blog/company-culture/2019/
this-anti-harassment-tactic-sets-women-back-and-may-be-illegal

California, Senate Bill 1343

Clark Co. School Dist. v. Breeden (2001) 532 U.S. 268, 270, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 1509
Learning, G. (2017, Jan 16). BFOQ: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O1JVU1gMuY
Lieb, A. (2019, Jan 12). Risk and Penalties To Employers Who Fail To Provide Sexual Harassment
Prevention Training in NY. Retrieved from http://blog.liebatlaw.com/2019/01/risk-and-penalties-to-
employers-who.html

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green 411 U.S. 792 (1973)

Meinert, D. (2018, Jan 8). How to Investigate Sexual Harassment Allegations. HR Magazine. Retrieved
from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/0218/Pages/how-to-
investigate-sexual-harassment-allegations.aspx

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986)

NBC News. (2019, July 19). How The #MeToo Movement Exposes The Failure Of HR.

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhLcdz1Ietg

BUSS213-Week 4 lecture- Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 15

Nolo. (2019). Creating a Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment. Retrieved from
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/creating-policy-prohibiting-
discrimination-harassment.html
Piazza, L. (2019, April 26). Must an Employee File an EEOC Discrimination Charge
Before a Lawsuit? Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-
and-compliance/employment-law/pages/must-an-employee-file-an-eeoc-
discrimination-charge-before-a-lawsuit.aspx

Title VII, 42 USCA § 2000e-2(a)(1)