Bullying: Often A Tolerated Form of Violence by Employers

Violence in the workplace starts far before clench hands fly or deadly weapons douse lives. Where disdain and animosity routinely uproot cooperation and communication, violence has happened.

It is time to treat workplace bullying equipollent to sexual harassment or racial discrimination, to identify the perpetrators, establish rules of conduct and penalties, and even pass laws proscribing and penalizing bullying.

Bullying in the workplace is very far reaching today, however before we can come to comprehend it, we should comprehend that bullying is not quite the same as innocuous incivility, impertinence, rudeness, prodding and other well-kenned forms of interpersonal torment. Bullying is a type of violence, however, it rarely includes fighting, battery or homicide. It is often sub-lethal, non-physical violence. And as research data show, bullying crosses boundaries of gender, race and organizational rank.

Attributes of Bullying

In what manner can an issue so common not trigger societal shock? Silence by targeted employees is understandable in light of the fact that disgrace comes from being controlled and humiliated.

Co-wokers’ silence bodes well in a dread tormented condition when individuals are uncertain on the off chance that they may next be targeted.

Notwithstanding how bullying is displayed – either verbal assaults or key moves to render the target ineffective and unsuccessful – it is the assailant’s want to control the objective that spurs the activity.

Bullying incorporates abuse that incorporates same-sex and same-race badgering. Research has found that in just 25% of bullying cases does the objective have secured amass status and in this way qualify the offenses as sexual harassment or racial discrimination. A college overview led by University of Illinois analysts found a comparable strength of bullying over types of illegal harassment. The fact that many types of bullying are not illegal makes it barely noticeable despite the fact that it is three times more common than its better-perceived, unlawful forms.

Men and women can be bullies. Women make 58% of the culprit pool, while men speak to 42%. Research likewise demonstrates that when the targeted individual is a woman, she is harassed by a woman in 63% of cases; when the objective is male, he is bullied by a man in 62% of episodes. Most bullying is same-sex provocation which makes up the dominant part of bullied individuals (80%).

Bullying is almost imperceptible. It is non-physical, and almost dependably sub-deadly working environment viciousness. Workplace homicide gets featured on the news as striking uncommon occasions even in the violent United States. Corporate chiefs focus intensely on aversion and reaction forms, topped with zero tolerance rules.

Strikingly, bullying is psychological violence, for the most part incognito and once in a while clear. It is mental savagery, both in its inclination and effect. Despite how bullying is exhibited – either verbal attacks or overt moves to render the objective ineffective and unsuccessful – it is the attacker’s intention to control the objective that spurs the activity. The significant hazard is mental harm, however, counseling is not offered by employers to complainants who report bullying.

The trademark normal to all bullies is that they are controlling contenders who misuse their agreeable targets. Most domineering jerks would stop if the tenets changed and tormenting was rebuffed.

Bullying nearly resembles the phenomenon of abusive behavior at home. Both were covered in silence before being conveyed to open consideration. Accomplice viciousness casualties at first were reprimanded for their destiny. In the long run, the conduct was workplace harassing merits a similar advancement from acknowledgment to disallowance. The glaring distinction amongst local and work environment mental viciousness is that the last finds the abuser on the employer’s payroll.

Why Employers Should Address Workplace Bullying?

Bullying is 3 times more pervasive than sexual harassment. Illegal discrimination and harassment require noteworthy speculations of time and cash to recognize, adjust and avert. Employers definitely recognize what to do about harassment. Bullying is costly: employment practices liability can be significant. A bullied employee, frequently the most capable employees, are driven from the workplace. Turnover is costly. 

What Employers Should Do?

Employers should create values-driven policy. An ideal anti-bullying policy should include a declaration of unacceptability; the organization must state its displeasure with the misconduct; hostile workplace protections for everyone; extend rights to everyone regardless of protected group status; extend, combine or replace existing anti-violence & anti-harassment policies; inescapable definition, reserve prohibitions only for severe incidents, to clarify the threshold for taking action; non-punitive separation for safety; documentation of adverse impact to discourage frivolous complaints or abuse of the policy; incorporate perpetrator pattern & practice over time; credible enforcement processes; credible third-party investigation & adjudication process; foster employee trust, to remove influence of personal relationships; progressive disciplinary action not zero tolerance, to allow for change in conduct; retaliation prohibition to count offenses of retaliation separately, to stop the cycle of violence.

Chipotle Mexican Grill Sued by EEOC For Sexual Harassment, Retaliation

Female GM Propositioned and Groped Young Male Employee, Federal Agency Charges

SAN JOSE, Calif. – Fast-food chain Chipotle Mexican Grill violated federal law by allowing a restaurant manager to sexually harass her subordinate and retaliating against him after he reported the misconduct, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s investigation, a 22-year-old male shift manager at a Chipotle San Jose store was forced to endure intrusive verbal and physical harassment by his female general manager. In addition to frequently discussing her own sex life and posting a daily “sex scoreboard” in the main office concerning all the staff’s sex lives, the general manager told the young shift manager that she wanted to suck his genitals, watch him have sex with his girlfriend, and engage in a “threesome.” She also frequently slapped, groped and grabbed his privates, the EEOC charged.

Even after he reported her behavior to upper management, the general manager continued to harass him, says the EEOC, and she retaliated against him by instructing employees not to speak to him. Also, he was locked in a walk-in freezer, and his motorcycle was picked up and moved to a different area in the parking lot. Left with no other alternatives, the male employee ultimately quit, the EEOC said.

Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process, the EEOC filed its lawsuit (EEOC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Case No. 5:17-CV-05382) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The EEOC seeks monetary damages for the shift manager and injunctive relief to remedy and prevent sexual harassment and retaliation from recurring at Chipotle.

“This young man’s first real job experience was shaped by a supervisor who abused her authority and created a sexually charged workplace culture,” said EEOC San Francisco Senior Trial Attorney Peter F. Laura. “Federal law requires employers to protect their workers from harassment and sexual abuse, especially in the hands of a manager.”

EEOC San Jose Local Office Director Rosa Salazar added, “Employers must take immediate and effective steps to investigate harassment, no matter whether filed by a male or female employee.” She noted that 16.6% of sexual harassment charges filed with the agency were brought by male workers in FY 2016.

Facts About Retaliation

The EEO laws prohibit punishing job applicants or employees for asserting their rights to be free from employment discrimination including harassment.  Asserting these EEO rights is called “protected activity,” and it can take many forms.  For example, it is unlawful to retaliate against applicants or employees for:

  • filing or being a witness in an EEO charge, complaint, investigation, or lawsuit
  • communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment
  • answering questions during an employer investigation of alleged harassment
  • refusing to follow orders that would result in discrimination
  • resisting sexual advances, or intervening to protect others
  • requesting accommodation of a disability or for a religious practice
  • asking managers or co-workers about salary information to uncover potentially discriminatory wages.

Participating in a complaint process is protected from retaliation under all circumstances. Other acts to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee was acting on a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws, even if he or she did not use legal terminology to describe it.

Engaging in EEO activity, however, does not shield an employee from all discipline or discharge. Employers are free to discipline or terminate workers if motivated by non-retaliatory and non-discriminatory reasons that would otherwise result in such consequences.  However, an employer is not allowed to do anything in response to EEO activity that would discourage someone from resisting or complaining about future discrimination.

For example, depending on the facts, it could be retaliation if an employer acts because of the employee’s EEO activity to:

  • reprimand the employee or give a performance evaluation that is lower than it should be;
  • transfer the employee to a less desirable position;
  • engage in verbal or physical abuse;
  • threaten to make, or actually make reports to authorities (such as reporting immigration status or contacting the police);
  • increase scrutiny;
  • spread false rumors, treat a family member negatively (for example, cancel a contract with the person’s spouse); or
  • make the person’s work more difficult (for example, punishing an employee for an EEO complaint by purposefully changing his work schedule to conflict with family responsibilities).

For more information, Questions and Answers: Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/retaliation-qa.cfm.