The new requirement to post a harassment policy must include a method for employees to report harassment.\n", "explanation": "The act applies to employers with at least 20 workers.
Social media can affect communications among managers, employees and job applicants; how organisations promote and control their reputation; and how colleagues treat one another.It can also distort what boundaries there are between home and work.“Violence” is defined as the use of ‘physical force’.Probably the most controversial item in the Bill is the requirement for the employer to inform workers when the will be working with a person with a history of violence and the “risk of workplace violence was likely to expose the worker to physical injury.” That will require some careful decision-making by employers.Under the new law, a worker will be able to refuse work when there is a risk of workplace violence, but not when they are victims of harassment.
Of course, an employee who is the victim of harassment at work may be able to sue her employer for breach of contract or constructive dismissal, especially if the employer was aware of the harassment and failed to stop it.
13Once the complainant establishes a prima facie case, the burden of production, as opposed to the burden of proof, shifts to the respondent to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action taken, supported by credible evidence.14If the respondent meets its burden of production, the complainant must prove that the reasons offered by the respondent were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination.15For example, a complainant may meet her initial burden by showing that she was fired soon after she turned down her supervisor's request for a date. Keyland Corp., 22 MDLR 125, 127 (2000) (president and owner of employer corporation who made such persistent verbal and physical sexual overtures to employee that she was finally compelled to quit held personally liable for hostile work environment sexual harassment; corporation also vicariously liable).67 MCAD v.
The request for a date would constitute the unwelcome advance. Medical Weight Loss Center, Inc., 23 MDLR 5, 12 (2001) (owner held individually liable where he coerced, intimidated, interfered with, and retaliated against the complainant in the exercise of her right to be free from harassment based on her sex and sexual orientation).68 Compare Deeter v.
Advice on the use of social media and social networking in the workplace.
Here we explore the issues, rules and guidelines for employers and employees, including cyber bullying, disciplinary procedures and implementing a social media policy.
It is a discriminatory practice for a person against whom a complaint has been filed under Part III, or any person acting on their behalf, to retaliate or threaten retaliation against the individual who filed the complaint or the alleged victim.