Many employers have implemented policies and procedures to protect employees from harassment in the electronic work space in an effort to limit liability.

EEOC statistics suggest that claims of unlawful harassment through electronic communications, including emails, pornographic websites, and sexual comments on social media and blogs make up an increasing percentage of sexual harassment charges and lawsuits.

Few court decisions address whether harassment by electronic conduct should be treated differently than physical or verbal forms of unlawful conduct.

Yet, in an age where employers provide computers, email accounts, and internet access to employees, efforts to filter and block offensive conduct through available software should bolster the argument that the employer affirmatively sought to prevent harassment.

The rise in harassing electronic conduct has prompted companies to purchase software that monitors electronic communications, filters out offensive messages and graphic content and renders such communications inaccessible to their workforce.

Indeed, an estimated three-quarters of major US corporations record and monitor employee electronic conduct, including email, internet communications and computer files.

Filtering Out Offensive Content

Filtering software and tools have become commonplace, readily available, and inexpensive. The software allows employers to better monitor offensive employee conduct and to protect those who would otherwise be victimized, directly or indirectly.

The employee who directs the offending information to someone whom he or she believed would not be offended may still be in violation of a zero-tolerance policy. Any expectation of privacy would be eliminated when the company’s electronic policies separately disclaims expectations of privacy when using company email or accessing content on a company computer.

Indeed, courts have validated the right of employers to monitor employees’ electronic communications in order to prevent personal use or abuse of company resources.

An employer that puts software mechanisms in place to filter out offensive content should be able to invoke an affirmative defense to employee allegations of electronic work space harassment.

Specifically, if a judge or jury finds that the employer’s use of available technology to monitor and block harassing communications was reasonable and effective in light of the employer’s financial resources, and the capabilities and the effectiveness of its technology, the court should evaluate how harassment occurred in spite of these efforts.

If the court determines that the employer did everything it could reasonably be expected to do to monitor and block the offending content, the court should allow the company to plead its efforts as an affirmative defense.

Advice for Employers

The law is still catching up with technology.

While we wait for courts to adopt a specific affirmative defense for employers, certain precautions may still aid an employer’s defense. Companies should develop robust technology policies that define the types of electronic content forbidden by company policy and that inform employees that the company is monitoring corporate email and electronic activity and blocking access to inappropriate websites and communication of offensive content.

Companies should be consistent in taking immediate, corrective action should any employee, regardless of position, violate the anti-harassment and technology policies.

Finally, employers should consult with their IT departments to explore and acquire software solutions that prevent unlawful harassment.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Jennifer Awrey Jennifer Awrey

Jennifer Awrey is a senior associate in Norton Rose Fulbright’s Los Angeles office. She is a member of the employment and labor practice group. Jennifer represents employers in all aspects of employment law, including discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, disability law, harassment, and wage…

Jennifer Awrey is a senior associate in Norton Rose Fulbright’s Los Angeles office. She is a member of the employment and labor practice group. Jennifer represents employers in all aspects of employment law, including discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, disability law, harassment, and wage and hour issues. She has represented employers in multiple jurisdictions in federal and state courts, and in administrative proceedings before federal agencies. Jennifer has also assisted employers with claims ranging from administrative charges and single plaintiff lawsuits to large wage and hour class actions.

Photo of Arthur F. Silbergeld Arthur F. Silbergeld

Arthur joined Norton Rose Fulbright’s Los Angeles office in 2014. Annually identified as one of the top employment litigators in California, he advises and defends employers in every aspect of employment law and labor relations, including defense in federal and state courts in…

Arthur joined Norton Rose Fulbright’s Los Angeles office in 2014. Annually identified as one of the top employment litigators in California, he advises and defends employers in every aspect of employment law and labor relations, including defense in federal and state courts in individual and class action complaints, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, disability, wrongful termination and whistleblower claims (including Sarbanes-Oxley complaints), drug testing, privacy, leave of absence and reductions in force, OSHA and Cal-OSHA, trade secret and non-compete issues. Arthur has represented and defended employers in all aspects of labor relations, including union organizing campaigns, bargaining negotiations, strikes, picketing, boycotts, grievance and arbitrations, Section 301 litigation and multi-employer trust fund matters.

He has first-chaired more than 100 trials and private arbitrations and has defended numerous employers in federal and state bench and jury trials in class actions and individual claims covering a wide spectrum of laws affecting personnel. He has assisted employers in evaluating risk and resolving disputes in early mediation in response to more than 300 demands and complaints.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *