The above case is a reminder that the “language” used by one employee can easily be considered “offensive” and sexual harassing by another employee. An employee’s stray comment, sexual inference or joke is often considered sexual harassment by a co-worker. Interestingly, the improper comments are often made by those employees in a supervisory, management or senior executive position.

To reduce company liability and prevent harassment allegations, claims and lawsuits, many companies conduct sexual harassment prevention training on an annual basis. Employees should be provided with the legal definition of sexual harassment, given examples of sexual harassment based on common work-day interactions, provided the company’s reporting procedures and encouraged to report all incidents without fear of retaliation.

Creating a culture where employees are empowered to report sexual harassment often starts with a well drafted employee handbook that clearly defines the company’s reporting procedures. To prevent sexual harassment, we recommend that all employers review their handbook policies for clarity and consider sexual harassment prevention training on an annual basis. Indeed, this training is a requirement for employers with more than 50 employees, which includes contractors and part-time employees.  Additionally, the training should be considered by smaller employers to bolster their defenses in the event of similar litigation.

Liberty Law provides economical harassment prevention training that complies with the law, adding to the employer’s defense in the event of litigation. Additionally, Liberty Law will provide this training and seminar free of charge to its level 2 and 3 monthly subscribers (more details here) after 6 months of engagement.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal for California has reversed the lower courts grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer, and held that when an employee causes a car accident while driving home from a 3 day business conference, even though on his normal commute route, the employer may be held liable for the injuries sustained while on the “special errand” for the employer where the employer cannot show that the employee was acting on his own interest or so deviated from the scope and course of employment that the chain of causation may be considered broken. Ok, that was a mouthful of a sentence, but I think you get the point.

You can find the opinion here.