LafayetteLady
Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007 From: Northern New Jersey Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Whilst it may be a small business in a small town, the employer owes the same duty of care as he would were this Megacorp Inc in Manhattan. And here at least, if she wished to raise a complaint that the duty had been failed, then she could take it forward herself or find a specialist lawyer (even paralegal) on contingency to do it for her. Since its unlikely she'd want to go back to her job, or that the employer would want her back, his failure to take action to fulfil his duty of care could easily comprise constructive dismissal on top of the harassment, for a settlement running to more than enough to account for a year's salary in such a position. I agree that the employer owes the same duty of care. The OP provided her with a pamphlet on sexual harassment, asked her if she wanted her to intervene and was told "no." There is still the he said/she said issue that is insurmountable really. The OP really does need to quietly "investigate," by means of eavesdropping to find out what exactly is being said. Something about this is telling my gut that it isn't what the employee is making it out to be, for whatever reason. In the US, a paralegal could not do anything for her on a case like this, it would constitute the unauthorized practice of law. The problem with the contingency is that it would not equal the amount of work that was done. This is a minimum wage position, and a lawsuit would cost the full amount of that year's salary plus some. The bare reality here is that the employee has made a conscious choice for the OP to do nothing. She didn't even give specifics of what he was saying, just that it was crass. Unless the OP left out the specifics (which do make a difference). She has the pamphlet, she can then decide if she feels there is something she wants her employer to do. But without actually knowing what was said, the employer risks making a false allegation against the man. There are certain types of jobs where an employee needs to be able to make reasonable decisions on their own. This employee is working the register at a gas station. If she is reasonably attractive, customers hitting on her or asking her out is not unlikely. They don't all constitue sexual harassment or a hostile work environment. Given there seemed to be no discomfort viewed on the video surveilence, it is not unreasonable to presume that the employee is not only not uncomfortable with the things the man says but also might indeed be encouraging him, enjoying the attention. Certainly it would be possible for her to attempt to retain an attorney and tell him that her employer did nothing. The OP, however, as the employer did exactly what she should have done. Having not been present to hear the conversations, and only getting the employees version of events, gave her a pamphlet on sexual harassment in the work place and asked if the employee would like her to intervene. The employee took the pamphlet and refused intervention, not once, but twice. Let's not forget that the employee also has a duty here as well. Has she instructed the man that what he is saying is unacceptable and needs to stop? She does have a duty to do so. Why? Because there may be times when she is the only employee present and the situation needs immediate action, which can only come from her. Therefore it is part of her job. At a gas station, there will be times that someone just "passing through" could be engaging in unwanted behavior, and the employee can't expect the employer to try to hunt them down to "make things right." In any case, as I said earlier, I don't think that this employee is actually bothered by what the man is doing. I believe that she likes the attention, hence her "As if...with what I have at home..." statement. That doesn't change the fact that the OP should find out what is actually occuring by way of eavesdropping, but until that happens, only the man and the employee actually know what is going on.
|