Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSherwyn, David
dc.contributor.authorSturman, Michael C.
dc.contributor.authorEigen, Zev J.
dc.contributor.authorHeise, Michael
dc.contributor.authorWalwyn, Jenn
dc.description.abstractThe outcome of 109 motions for summary judgment filed since June 1998, in which employers argued that a hostile-environment case should be dismissed because the employer satisfied, as a matter of law, the affirmative defense are analyzed. The examination of these cases provides the opportunity to test past conjecture and describe how courts have implemented the Ellerh and Faragher rulings. It is found that employers are still able to prevail in summary-judgment motions. With evidence showing that employers can satisfy the affirmative defense, each of the three areas that commentators have suggested should have prevented such success is examined. What courts required to constitute reasonable care, how courts have ruled when employees failed to report harassment, and how courts have ruled when employees did report harassment.
dc.rightsRequired Publisher Statement: © Cornell University. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
dc.subjectcourt decisions
dc.subjectpolicy making
dc.titleThe Perversity of Sexual-harassment Law: Effects of Recent Court Rulings
dc.description.legacydownloadsSturman72_The_Prevention_of_Sexual_harassment_Law.pdf: 398 downloads, before Aug. 1, 2020.
local.authorAffiliationSherwyn, David: Cornell University
local.authorAffiliationSturman, Michael C.: Cornell University
local.authorAffiliationEigen, Zev J.: Northwestern University
local.authorAffiliationHeise, Michael: Cornell University
local.authorAffiliationWalwyn, Jenn: University of California

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record