Russian Judge: Sex Harassment Necessary for Procreation
It's a slow news week in American labor and employment law, so we have to go all the way to Russia for a newsworthy story: a Russian judge recently ruled that sex harassment is lawful because it's necessary for human procreation. According to the judge, sex harassment is "gallant," not criminal: "If we had no sexual harassment we would have no children," wrote the judge in his opinion dismissing a female executive's lawsuit.
Really. We're not making this up. If you don't believe us, check out what the U.K. Telegraph has to say. Or one of our favorite blogs, the Huffington Post.
Don't expect this to become a successful defense in this country any time soon. If you have an employee that thinks sex harassment is "gallant," have them read this fact sheet on sex harassment from our friends at the EEOC.
Former Official Sues NASCAR for Race, Sex Harassment
Today's big news: Former NASCAR technical inspector Mauricia Grant filed suit against the auto racing league for sexual and racial harassment, discrimination and retaliation, seeking $225 million dollars. According to Grant's complaint, she was referred to as "Nappy Headed Mo" and "Queen Sheba" by co-workers, was often told she worked on "colored people time" and was frightened by one official who routinely made references to the Ku Klux Klan. In addition, Grant said she was subjected to sexual advances from male co-workers, two of whom allegedly exposed themselves to her, and graphic and lewd jokes. Two weeks after Grant complained about this treatment, she was terminated. If Grant's claims have merit, she's certainly entitled to just compensation. But whenever I see a plaintiff ask for huge sums of money (and for an employment case, $225 million is "huge"), this is the image it conjures in my mind.
.jpg){kind=link}
