Court derails sexual harassment suit against U.P. (must read for the ladies here)

[Omaha Steve]

I can't believe the law quoted in the last paragraph!


http://www.omaha.com/article/20100402/NEWS97/100409909/0#court-derails-suit-against-u-p

Published Friday April 2, 2010

By Paul Hammel

LINCOLN -- A legal complaint about employees who "goosed" co-workers' rear ends and called female colleagues "Rail Dogs" who bore their babies was derailed by the Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday.

The court ruled that the Union Pacific Railroad was not negligent in an alleged case of sexual harassment brought by a railroad worker out of Utah.

The worker who brought the complaint, Chadly S. Ballard, failed to prove that the UP knew or should have known that a trio of workers had "dangerous propensities," the ruling stated.

Ballard had filed suit after an incident involving a trio of co-workers on a UP crew in Delta, Utah. He said that two workers picked him up by the arms, and a third thrust his hips into Ballard's groin area.

The employees were suspended from work by the railroad due to the incident.

But lawsuits filed by Ballard in both federal and state court were dismissed.

Under a federal employers law that pertains to railroads, a person must prove that a co-worker had a propensity for harmful, harassing behavior and that his employer was aware of it.

[YOY]

1. UP are notorious fuckheads in the American rail world.

Ownedby fuck heads, managed by fuckheads, not surprised the Union guys follow suite.

[elleng]

2. UP is and has been a very successful railroad. Lots of U.S. history.

PUBLICLY OWNED.

I'm not surprised that guys do this, nor that court in Lincoln, Nebraska follows suit; Omaha is UP's headquarters.

[YOY]

3. Then the Public named an engine after Bush I and costs Amtrak millions in revenue.

No...the freights have their share of fair dealers. UP is not a nice player.

[elleng]

5. I didn't say 'Nice!'

UP is 'owned' by stockholders, obviously managed by 'others!'

[YOY]

18. Yes, I know what 'publicly owned' means.

But the board representing them, if a true representation of those stock holders, are not by any means a boon to business. They're some of the chief bloodsuckers that I have to secondarily deal with on occasion.

[elleng]

19. Yes, 'Boards' don't do much for 'real' people, do they?

[Kali]

6. interesting

I live and work on a ranch in SE Arizona. We have some track that runs through a grazing lease. Back in the old days we always got along well with Southern Pacific, but when they changed to Union Pacific the most common sensation I have is "fucking assholes!"

Nit picky about every damn thing, slow to pay on kill claims, won't do any fence maintenance (Arizona is a fence-out state, their responsibility to keep livestock off the right-of-way). They dick you around for EVERYTHING.

[rasputin1952]

4. Under the law, generally speaking, the employer will be held...

liable only if it knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take remedial action.

Apparently, the suspension of the harassing employees was enough for UP to found not liable.

This is one aspect of the law that can be iffy, but, I don't know all of the details in the case. UP must have had a good defense. One added situation that could have a bearing is that another gray area, is same sex harassment, it is dealt with on local and state levels in different ways.

FTR: I don't think harassment should be tolerated in any work/non-work environment, but until the law is clarified, that's the way it is.

[elleng]

7. UP ALWAYS has a 'good defense.'

It retains the 'best' attorneys.

[rasputin1952]

8. I figured they had good lawyers...

most companies have their own force. Then there are smaller firms that have lawyers retained.

I'm no legal Eagle, but I have taken Business Law and have a general knowledge how these things work, (I also have my $300 book on this stuff for reference, no way I'm going to sell it back to the college for $20...;) )

Under Title VII many things are covered, but ultimately, it comes down to states, if they merely follow Title VII they are covered, but any state can pass more stringent laws, they just can't detract; still, unless something is specifically mentioned, there is always room for how a court will render judgment. I'm in NE, and this state is pretty conservative and business friendly. In Utah, if the suit was brought there against these specific individuals, things might have been different, but the went the corporate home route, not the best thing to do in this situation as far as I could figure.

[elleng]

9. Are you saying plaintiffs filed in Nebraska court,

or was there a change in venue, advocated by UP?

{I am a lawyer, and handled railroad-related matters, for the government and privately, for 20 +- years.}

[rasputin1952]

10. The story comes out of Lincoln NE...

states both federal and state claims were dismissed...:hi:

[elleng]

11. Got it.

Nebraska Supreme Court

'The employees were suspended from work by the railroad due to the incident. . .

Under a federal employers law that pertains to railroads, a person must prove that a co-worker had a propensity for harmful, harassing behavior and that his employer was aware of it.'

[omega minimo]

12. .

[omega minimo]

13. .

[omega minimo]

14. .

[Brickbat]

15. What a bizarre article.

The lede has nothing to do with the harassment in Ballard's case. And having read one of the judgments, I would have ruled the same way.

And why is this something the "ladies" should especially read, since it was men-on-man harassment?

[Omaha Steve]

16. Making them aware of the ghastly law for rail workers

Most of these types of complaints are filed by women. I can tell you this would not be tolerated at my plant from anyone.

[Brickbat]

17. OK, I see.

It's interesting -- Mr. Brickbat has gone from working as a union carpenter to a union locomotive engineer, and there are quite a few laws that apply to him differently because of the FRA. A case like this really highlights the differences.