Connecticut Public Policy Supports, And In Some Cases, Requires, Termination Of Workplace Harassers

State of Connecticut v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 391, No. 18749 (August 6, 2013): The Connecticut Supreme Court recently upheld the reversal of an arbitrator’s decision to reinstate an employee whose employment was terminated for sexually harassing a coworker. The court determined that the arbitrator’s ruling for reinstatement was a violation of “clear, well-defined, and dominant” public policy against sexual harassment in Connecticut—one of the few bases upon which a court may overturn an arbitration decision. The court, quoting a Connecticut appellate court case, noted that the relevant inquiry was whether the employee’s misconduct was “so egregious that it requires nothing less than termination of the [worker’s] employment so as not to violate public policy.” While this decision arose in the context of an employer challenging an arbitrator’s ruling for reinstatement of an employee under a collective bargaining agreement, the court’s decision could potentially have a greater impact given the broad language that the court used in the opinion.

In reaching its decision to overturn the arbitrator’s ruling for reinstatement, the court indicated that some conduct by a harasser may be so egregious that any punishment short of termination constitutes a violation of public policy. It is not difficult to foresee an employee who has alleged harassment relying upon the court’s language to rebut any argument by an employer that it properly “remedied” the harassment by disciplining the harasser through means short of termination. An employee could argue, based on the court’s ruling, that the harasser’s actions were so egregious that any punishment “less than termination” was not only an improper remedy, but a violation of public policy. When disciplining workplace harassers, employers must keep in mind that under certain circumstances, for conduct of a particularly egregious nature, termination may be the only proper remedy.

Note: This article was published in the August 15, 2013 issue of the Connecticut eAuthority.

- See more at: http://www.ogletreedeakins.com/publications/2013-08-15/connecticut-public-policy-supports-and-some-cases-requires-termination-workp#sthash.KAqf2nfs.dpuf

 

State of Connecticut v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 391, No. 18749 (August 6, 2013): The Connecticut Supreme Court recently upheld the reversal of an arbitrator’s decision to reinstate an employee whose employment was terminated for sexually harassing a coworker. The court determined that the arbitrator’s ruling for reinstatement was a violation of “clear, well-defined, and dominant” public policy against sexual harassment in Connecticut—one of the few bases upon which a court may overturn an arbitration decision. The court, quoting a Connecticut appellate court case, noted that the relevant inquiry was whether the employee’s misconduct was “so egregious that it requires nothing less than termination of the [worker’s] employment so as not to violate public policy.” While this decision arose in the context of an employer challenging an arbitrator’s ruling for reinstatement of an employee under a collective bargaining agreement, the court’s decision could potentially have a greater impact given the broad language that the court used in the opinion.

In reaching its decision to overturn the arbitrator’s ruling for reinstatement, the court indicated that some conduct by a harasser may be so egregious that any punishment short of termination constitutes a violation of public policy. It is not difficult to foresee an employee who has alleged harassment relying upon the court’s language to rebut any argument by an employer that it properly “remedied” the harassment by disciplining the harasser through means short of termination. An employee could argue, based on the court’s ruling, that the harasser’s actions were so egregious that any punishment “less than termination” was not only an improper remedy, but a violation of public policy. When disciplining workplace harassers, employers must keep in mind that under certain circumstances, for conduct of a particularly egregious nature, termination may be the only proper remedy.

Note: This article was published in the August 15, 2013 issue of the Connecticut eAuthority.

- See more at: http://www.ogletreedeakins.com/publications/2013-08-15/connecticut-public-policy-supports-and-some-cases-requires-termination-workp#sthash.KAqf2nfs.dpuf

State of Connecticut v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 391, No. 18749 (August 6, 2013): The Connecticut Supreme Court recently upheld the reversal of an arbitrator’s decision to reinstate an employee whose employment was terminated for sexually harassing a coworker. The court determined that the arbitrator’s ruling for reinstatement was a violation of “clear, well-defined, and dominant” public policy against sexual harassment in Connecticut—one of the few bases upon which a court may overturn an arbitration decision. The court, quoting a Connecticut appellate court case, noted that the relevant inquiry was whether the employee’s misconduct was “so egregious that it requires nothing less than termination of the [worker’s] employment so as not to violate public policy.” While this decision arose in the context of an employer challenging an arbitrator’s ruling for reinstatement of an employee under a collective bargaining agreement, the court’s decision could potentially have a greater impact given the broad language that the court used in the opinion.

In reaching its decision to overturn the arbitrator’s ruling for reinstatement, the court indicated that some conduct by a harasser may be so egregious that any punishment short of termination constitutes a violation of public policy. It is not difficult to foresee an employee who has alleged harassment relying upon the court’s language to rebut any argument by an employer that it properly “remedied” the harassment by disciplining the harasser through means short of termination. An employee could argue, based on the court’s ruling, that the harasser’s actions were so egregious that any punishment “less than termination” was not only an improper remedy, but a violation of public policy. When disciplining workplace harassers, employers must keep in mind that under certain circumstances, for conduct of a particularly egregious nature, termination may be the only proper remedy.

Note: This article was published in the August 15, 2013 issue of the Connecticut eAuthority.

Topics:  Arbitration, Employer Liability Issues, Harassment, Public Policy, Sexual Harassment, Termination

Published In: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Updates, Civil Rights Updates, Labor & Employment Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »