Our Blog

The workplace is a whole lot different than it was just a few decades ago. There are more double income families – not necessarily by choice, but often for survival. More Americans are taking on elder care responsibilities. More men are taking time off to care for children, and using employer policies once “reserved” for females. And without a doubt there are more women (and mothers) in the workforce today.

Along with these shifts, we’ve seen the expression of some powerful negative stereotypes and old-school cultural norms, which tend to butt heads with the needs and realities of the contemporary American workforce.

Not surprisingly, a new employment law trend has emerged – Family Responsibility Discrimination. FRD has found its way into mainstream discrimination discussions, and is an important new topic to cover in discrimination and harassment training. Most significantly, the EEOC issued guidance on FRD in late May of 2007. (See EEOC Guidance on FRD). The EEOC didn’t create a new cause of action or expand existing statues – but its guidance has brought attention and legitimacy to this issue.

On Thursday, June 21, 2007, the United States Supreme Court handed down an important decision (Rita v. U.S., 06-5754) that should make all employers take note. The case involved the reasonableness of a 33-month prison sentence imposed on a criminal defendant under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (FSGs). The prison sentence fell within the range established by the FSGs.

The Court held that an appellate court, considering the appropriateness of a prison sentence, can apply a presumption of reasonableness to the sentence if it falls within the guidelines established by the FSGs. Prior to this ruling, a sentence could be reversed if it was deemed unreasonable by an appellate court.

The practical effect of this decision is that criminal defendants (even employers held liable for the criminal acts of their employees) will have great difficulty getting a prison sentence overturned on appeal if the sentence falls within the FSG guidelines. (See Associated Press Article: Court Backs Rules Governing Prison Terms). Most federal sentences fall within the guidelines.

Sex and work just don’t mix well – and when office romances turn sour, careers and reputations have a tendency to unravel.

There’s been a lot to blog about lately on this topic – San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome (The Mayor Newsome Affair – Legal and Sexual Harassment Training Implications) and of course soon-to-be former President of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz (Men and Women View Sexual Harassment Differently: The Power Divide).

Newsome headed off to rehab and has stayed mostly under the radar. Wolfowitz held out a long time there, but finally caved and resigned. Awarding his girlfriend a hefty pay increase was just too much to overcome, and like many other sex-in-the-workplace scandals, his transgression was couched as a violation of the Code of Conduct. (See NYTimes.com: Wolfowitz Resigns, Ending Long Fight At World Bank).

These high profile office romances are no longer just about the sexual harassment policy (or any accompanying sexual harassment training programs.) They’re about ethics.