1996) (holding that the employer did not have to accommodate an worker who sent proselytizing letters to coworkers invading their privacy and criticizing their personal lives because doing so might subject the employer to attainable religious harassment lawsuits). 2014) (concluding that the employer was not required to accommodate an worker by permitting her to distribute pamphlets that have been offensive to coworkers, including materials that negatively depicted Muslims and Catholics and acknowledged that they would go to hell); Chalmers v. Tulon Co., One zero one F.3d 1012, 1021 (4th Cir. Those who violated the little one restrict coverage by having an unapproved little one or serving to one other accomplish that confronted disciplinary measures akin to social compensation charges, job loss or demotion, loss of promotion alternative, expulsion from the get together (membership is an unofficial requirement for certain jobs), and different administrative punishments, including in some cases the destruction of private property. 2015) (“A staffing agency is liable for the discriminatory conduct of its joint-employer client if it participates in the discrimination, or if it is aware of or should have recognized of the client’s discrimination but fails to take corrective measures within its management.”) (ADA discriminatory termination case); Whitaker v. Milwaukee Cnty., 772 F.3d 802, 811-12 (seventh Cir.
1992) (the place the plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment by her supervisor throughout a job assignment, three entities could be found liable: the staffing firm that paid her wage and advantages, the vehicle company that contracted for her services, and the retail automobile dealership to which she was assigned; the staffing agency and automobile company were held to the standard for harassment by non-staff, below which an entity is liable if it had actual or constructive information of the harassment and didn’t take fast and acceptable corrective motion within its control); cf. 2005) (concluding that the employer acted fairly in not investigating a complaint the place the complainant said he wanted to handle the scenario himself and failed to indicate the severity of the harassment, although the employer may need a obligation to take corrective motion in other circumstances, regardless of a complainant’s wishes), amended by 433 F.3d 672 (ninth Cir. 374 Glob. Horizons, 915 F.3d at 641-42 (explaining that the place a client was conscious of discrimination and will have taken corrective motion to cease it, the shopper may be liable).
2009) (concluding that a male supervisor established a prima facie case of intercourse discrimination when he offered proof showing that he was terminated after being accused of sexual harassment by a feminine worker and was told by his supervisor that “you probably did what she stated you probably did because you’re male and no one would consider you anyway”). For additional info, see the relevant sections of EEOC’s Compliance Manual Section on Religious Discrimination. 376 See Mullis v. Mechs. 365 See Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599, 607 (ninth Cir. 63, 89-ninety (1977)); Brown v. Polk Cnty., Sixty one F.3d 650, 656-57 (8th Cir. Horizons, Inc., 915 F.3d 631, 642 (9th Cir. Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 798 F.3d 222, 229 (fifth Cir. 366 See, e.g., Powell v. Yellow Book USA, Inc., 445 F.3d 1074, 1078 (8th Cir. 367 Sassaman v. Gamache, 566 F.3d 307, 311-12 (2d Cir. 378 See, e.g., Ellis v. Houston, 742 F.3d 307, 318, 320-22 (8th Cir. 380 This example is adapted from the details in Ellis v. Houston, 742 F.3d 307 (8th Cir.
2006); Torres v. Pisano, 116 F.3d 625, 639 (2d Cir. Indus. of Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 404, 414-16 (4th Cir. Inc., 427 F.3d 1177, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006), amended by 436 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 370 See Torres, 116 F.3d at 639 (stating that the employer most probably couldn’t honor a single employee’s request to not take action if other employees have been additionally being harassed). 375 See id. (holding that two joint employers might be held liable for a similar hostile atmosphere if both knew or should have known of it and each had the ability to take corrective action); Magnuson v. Peak Tech. ”); see additionally EEOC v. Pitre Inc., 908 F. Supp. Servs., 808 F. Supp. Farmers Bank, 994 F. Supp. Am., Inc., 990 F. Supp. 379 EEOC v. Hill Country Farms, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-00041 (S.D. 373 See, e.g., EEOC v. Glob. 381 Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S.