With all the news stories about sexual harassment allegations in Hollywood, the tech industry, and the media, it may seem like the only viable harassment claims are those with blatant evidence and, in some cases,
quid pro quo
The recent high-profile sexual harassment claims involving Harvey Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ailes at Fox News, Uber, and elsewhere are timely reminders about the persistent problem of sexual harassment in workplaces around the country.
Lawyers occasionally refer to a “constructive discharge” claim when talking about an employee who has involuntarily resigned from their job. Sometimes it’s referred to as constructive termination, constructive dismissal, or constructive discharge. But it all boils
When the media report on workplace sexual harassment issues, they sometimes refer to “quid pro quo” discrimination. While the approximate translation is “something for something” or “this for that,” a recent federal appellate decision,
In a complaint filed yesterday in federal court, the Attorney General of Washington alleged that an agricultural company allowed extreme unlawful sexual harassment against its female employees. Indeed, the lawsuit claims that “sexual harassment of female farm workers