Broken Windows Theory and Sexual Harassment

“Zero Tolerance” – is it an ambiguous term, we asked recently?   Is it a synonym for “non-thinking,” as one reader suggested?

Should it be reserved for serious violations?   Does “one size not fit all?”

New Racial Harassment Case

On October 4th, we posted about a new EEOC Title VII race and national origin harassment lawsuit

A reader, Tony Vogele, in response to our post about sexual banter leading (or not leading) to sexual harassment, said that “The best rule is probably, ‘don’t say anything in the workplace you wouldn’t say to your mother or first grade teacher.’  While it might sound overly strict, the cost-benefit analysis says it

The title of this post expresses in sound-bite form an excellent and thoughtful comment, informed by experience, which we received from a reader who is a long-time HR professional.   Anthony J. Zagarino, PHR, a Human Resources Training & Development Manager in New Jersey wrote the following, which could be a great short primer on

Participating in sexual banter that was the norm in the “sexualized environment” of Sleep Country mattress stores in British Columbia cost an employee her sexual23508094_s harassment claim.   The company claimed that all of its stores where this employee worked had a “sexualized environment” where “crude banter was the norm,” and the employee herself admitted that

Last February we asked:  what if employers (who, hopefully, adhere to a well-publicized “zero-tolerance” policy towards sexual harassment, or any kind of harassment for that matter), actively discouraged, showed disapproval or otherwise rebuked every stray or trivial unwanted comment or act that did not rise to a legally-actionable level?  Would this cause a decrease