EEOC Issues Guidance on Employer Response to Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking

05 November 2012 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Two weeks ago, a spa in southeastern Wisconsin made national news when the estranged husband of one of the spa’s employees shot and killed his wife and two other employees, and injured several others, before committing suicide. Given the security risks and safety concerns associated with employing victims of domestic violence and stalking, what can an employer do to prevent similar incidents in the workplace? While there are several proactive measures an employer may choose to implement (including training, safety/security planning, and/or EAP or community referrals), firing the victimized employee (or refusing to hire an applicant with a history of domestic violence) should not be one of them. In fact, the EEOC recently published a fact sheet indicating that, although federal discrimination laws do not explicitly protect applicants or employees who have been victims of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault, an employer that makes employment decisions based on such considerations may run afoul of Title VII or the ADA. Many states also have laws that protect, and allow leave, for victims of domestic violence or sexual assault.

According to the EEOC, the following types of employment actions may violate Title VII because they involve decisions that appear to be the result of sex-based stereotypes:

  • Terminating an employee after learning she has been a victim of domestic violence because of fears about the potential “drama battered women bring to the workplace”
  • Refusing to hire a male applicant when the employer learns that the applicant obtained a restraining order against his male domestic partner because of the hiring manager’s belief that only women can be “true” victims of domestic violence
  • Allowing a male employee to use unpaid leave for a court appearance related to the criminal prosecution of an assault, but denying such leave for a female employee’s court appearance in a domestic violence matter
  • Failing to take adequate action against a male employee who stalks a female employee by sitting close to her, waiting for her outside the bathroom and after work, and calling and emailing her repeatedly

Similarly, the EEOC’s fact sheet contains the following examples of employer actions that may violate the ADA because they involve different treatment for employees with actual or perceived impairments resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking:

  • Refusing to hire an applicant after learning that she was a complaining witness in a rape prosecution and received counseling for depression
  • Failing to take action against employees who make derogatory comments about a coworker’s burn scars, which resulted from an attack by the employee’s former domestic partner
  • Denying an employee’s request for a temporary schedule change or unpaid leave in connection with treatment for depression or anxiety following a sexual assault or incident of domestic violence
  • Denying an employee’s transfer request in the aftermath of stalking by an ex-boyfriend coworker based on the company’s “no transfer” policy

In light of this guidance regarding victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, employers should consider updating their nondiscrimination and no harassment policies and training to educate managers and employees about how to deal with workplace issues that stem from domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. As mentioned above, employers should be aware that certain state laws, including state family and medical leave laws, contain specific protections for domestic violence, sexual assault, and/or stalking victims. Finally, employers should be informed about, and take advantage of, any internal or community policies or resources (for example, workplace violence policies, EAP, local organizations) that can provide additional guidance for dealing with domestic violence or stalking in the workplace and should seek legal advice in connection with any specific concerns.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Insights