Annotated Bibliography

Work Cited:

Volokh, Eugene. "What Speech Does "Hostile Work Environment" Harassment Law Restrict?"

UCLA School of Law. 1997. Web. 20 Nov. 2009.

Descriptive Abstract (Summary):

This article outlines what types of speech constitutes a hostile work environment. It also
concludes what employees should do to handle individual cases. It gives reference to several
court cases which deal with hostile speech in the workplace and a firm definition of what a
hostile work environment is.

Quotes:

“Putting all this together, harassment law potentially burdens any workplace speech that's
offensive to at least one person in the workplace based on that person's race, religion, sex,
national origin, age, disability, military membership or veteran status or, in some jurisdictions,
sexual orientation, marital status, political affiliation, criminal record, occupation, citizenship
status, tobacco use outside work, Appalachian origin, receipt of public assistance, dishonorable
discharge from the military, or personal appearance, even when the speech is political and even
when it's not severe or pervasive enough to itself be actionable.

The evidence I have set out -- the best guess as to how a cautious employer would
behave, the policies recommended by employment lawyers, the policies actually implemented by
some employers, the injunctions issued by courts, the logic of the seventy-nine law professors'
brief, the justification provided in the educational context by Professor Grey, even the
recommended policy given by Professor Epstein, who claims that harassment law is a very
narrow speech restriction -- all points towards this. The "regulatory reach" of harassment law is
certainly not limited to the "most objectively extreme, persistent, and unwelcome" forms of
conduct.” (Volokh)

Appropriateness:

Eugene Volokh is a professor at UCLA law school. The information he makes available to the
general public is reliable and thoroughly researched.
 Annotated Bibliography

Work Cited:

"Understanding Workplace Harassment." Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Home

Page. 08 Jan. 2008. Web. 21 Nov. 2009.

Descriptive Abstract (Summary):

This article clearly defines what workplace harassment is and outlines what it isn’t.

Quotes:

“Hostile work environment harassment occurs when unwelcome comments or conduct

based on sex, race or other legally protected characteristics unreasonably interferes with an
employee’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
Anyone in the workplace might commit this type of harassment – a management official, co-
worker, or non-employee, such as a contractor, vendor or guest. The victim can be anyone
affected by the conduct, not just the individual at whom the offensive conduct is directed.”
(FCC)

Appropriateness:

This article is only intended for a definition of what actions are considered harassment. It is
published by the government, so the content is found to be reliable.
 Annotated Bibliography

Work Cited:

Fortney, Michael L., Neil E. Klingshirn, and Joseph R. Spoonster. "Retaliation at Work –

Stopping Employers who Retaliates against Employees." Employment and Construction

Attorneys serving Cleveland, Akron and Northeast Ohio. Web. 21 Nov. 2009.

Descriptive Abstract (Summary):

If an employee reports an action of an employer and the employer retaliates against them,
this action is considered illegal. Retaliation by employers can come in many forms. This article
highlights the type of retaliation an employer may take and the rights of an employee.

Quotes:

“The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects employees who collectively
complain about terms or conditions of their employment, whether or not they are members of a
union. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits retaliation for actions taken to be free from
employment discrimination. The United States Constitution protects public employees from
retaliation for exercising their right to free speech. Governments cannot, for example, use their
power to chill public speech. Governments therefore cannot retaliate against citizens working for
them if they exercise their free speech rights.” (Klingshirn, Fortney and Spoonster)

Appropriateness:

This article is published by lawyers to gain business. The information they present is
relevant, but does not go in depth.
 Annotated Bibliography

Work Cited:

"Discrimination & Harassment - Employee Rights Center." Employment Lawyer, Labor Lawyer,

Attorney, Law - FindLaw. Web. 19 Nov. 2009.

Descriptive Abstract (Summary):

This website provides a detailed summary of an employee’s rights in the workplace. It

entails how to avoid discrimination, what you should do when discrimination occurs, the steps to
follow up with human resources, and the description of the legal process dealing with workplace
hostility.

Quotes:

“Recognizing discrimination is only part of the battle; proper steps must also be taken to
enforce your rights. As previously mentioned, the law entitles victims of discrimination to
recover a variety of damages. This may include reinstatement or job hiring; receiving wage
adjustments, back pay, and double back pay; receiving promotions and future pay; recovering
legal fees, filing costs and fees paid for expert witnesses; receiving punitive damages and
compensatory damages up to $300,000 depending on the size of the employer, and other
damages depending on the facts of your case. Even if you work in a right-to-work state and can
be fired easily, it is illegal to be fired because you belong to a protected class, such as being a
woman, over 40, a minority, handicapped, or a religious believer. In seeking to enforce your
rights, you will not be alone. More than 100,000 formal complaints are filed each year with the
EEOC and approximately 10,000 private discrimination lawsuits are tried in court annually. This
does not include the many hundreds of thousands of complaints brought to state and local
agencies and other institutions. To start the ball rolling, it is necessary to file a formal charge. No
one can stop you from filing a complaint; the law forbids employers from threatening reprisals or
retaliation (such as loss of a promotion) when action is taken. The following facts must be
included in the complaint: 1.Your name, 2.The names, business addresses, and business
telephone numbers of all persons who committed and/or participated in the discriminatory act(s),
3.Specific events, dates, and facts to support why the act(s) were discriminatory (e.g., statistics,
whether other employees or individuals were discriminated against, and if so, the person(s)
victimized, and by whom). (FindLaw.com)

Appropriateness:

FindLaw is a website that researches legal issues and presents the results in a
decipherable manner. The articles are written by lawyers. The website is credible and the articles
are extremely helpful in understanding workplace rights.
 Annotated Bibliography

Work Cited:

Muhl, Charles J. "Employment at Will." United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Jan. 2001.

Web. 18 Nov. 2009.

Descriptive Abstract (Summary):

Most states are under the employment at will doctrine which states an employer can fire
an employee for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all. This doctrine has becoming increasing
popular among state legislations since employees reserve the right to resign. This article analyzes
the doctrine and presents information concerning which states are under this doctrine.

Quotes:

“This article focuses on the three major exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine, as
developed in common law, including recognition of these exceptions in the 50 States. The
exceptions principally address terminations that, although they technically comply with the
employment-at-will requirements, do not seem just. The most widespread exception prevents
terminations for reasons that violate a State’s public policy. Another widely recognized
exception prohibits terminations after an implied contract for employment has been established;
such a contract can be created through employer representations of continued employment, in the
form of either oral assurances or expectations created by employer handbooks, policies, or other
written assurances. Finally, a minority of States has read an implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing into the employment relationship. The good faith covenant has been interpreted in
different ways, from meaning that terminations must be for cause to meaning that terminations
cannot be made in bad faith or with malice intended.” (Muhl)

Appropriateness:

This article clearly identifies what an at will employment doctrine is. It is from the United
States Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is a reliable source.
 Annotated Bibliography

Work Cited:

Ryan, Liz. "Caution: Don't Count on HR." BusinessWeek - Business News, Stock Market &

Financial Advice. 16 Apr. 2007. Web. 21 Nov. 2009.

Descriptive Abstract (Summary):

This article highlights the extent of a human resources officer and what they can do for an
individual filing a complaint.

Quotes:

“I have been a human-resources person for 25 years, and I love the field, in the same
abstract way that I love my country and the thought of peace on Earth. But I also see how things
actually work in real-life companies, and that's why I advise employees to think twice (or three
or four times) before they spill their guts to their local HR representatives. The fact is, sharing
your woes with an HR person can be a self-destructive move. For one thing, HR people aren't
typically trained in employee counseling and their advice may not be so great. But that's the least
of your potential worries when you lay out your troubles with an HR type. Human-resources
people typically follow a confidentiality guideline known as the "Need to Know" standard.
Here's how it works: When an employee comes to HR with a problem and asks that the
conversation stay in confidence, the HR person can say, "Oh, absolutely. I will only share our
conversation with others on a 'Need to Know' basis." Well, what the heck kind of standard is
that? I have asked HR people about this slippery standard for years, but I have never met one
who can produce a written definition of it. I don't think such a thing exists.” (Ryan)

Appropriateness:

This article seems a bit biased, but it is a representation of firsthand experience in human
resources departments.
 Annotated Bibliography

Work Cited:

Vokoun, Melissa. "Avoiding a Hostile Workplace - Fairness in Employee Discipline."

EzineArticles. 07 May 2007. Web. 22 Nov. 2009.

Descriptive Abstract (Summary):

Employers should be consistent when reprimanding employees because employee

perception is crucial in determining whether or not a workplace is hostile. If one employee is
treated differently, this could be grounds for a lawsuit. Proper management training is crucial.

Quotes:

“The perception of employees is the key to creating a work environment that is neutral to
the personalities and personal preferences involved. Discrimination occurs when your employees
perceive that they are being treated differently than others. When the tardiness of one worker is
excused because they have to take their child to day care but the tardiness of another worker
without such a valid reason is cited with warnings can cause the perception of unfairness. In your
warning to the employee with day care issues you can mention your empathy with working
parents and suggest flextime options or carpooling as constructive suggestions but the
employee's failure to adhere to work rules must be documented. Other employees may not know
about their coworkers obligations and be angry when they are written up for tardiness and others
are not. Hostility can be avoided by consistent and equitable enforcement of work rules.
Avoiding the impression of unfairness can go a long way to maintaining an impartial workplace,
the satisfaction of employees, and the feeling that everyone is being treated in the same way. It
also takes the perception of bias out of the employee relations equation. Though it means hard
choices it can mean the difference between a hostile and hospitable work environment.”
(Vokoun)

Appropriateness:

This article is written by an expert, but posted as a blog. It isn’t reliable.

 Annotated Bibliography

Work Cited:

"Office of the Whistleblower Protection Program (OWPP)." Occupational Safety and Health

Administration - OSHA HOME PAGE. United States Department of Labor. Web. 22 Nov.

2009.

Descriptive Abstract (Summary)

Any employee who reports their employer to OSHA for violation of occupational health
and safety acts in protected under the Whistleblower Act. This protects the employee from
retaliation from his/her employer. This retaliation can come in many forms and employee are
urged to report any retaliation.

Quotes:

“The Occupational Safety and Health Act is designed to regulate employment conditions
relating to occupational safety and health and to achieve safer and more healthful workplaces
throughout the nation. The Act provides for a wide range of substantive and procedural rights for
employees and representatives of employees. The Act also recognizes that effective
implementation and achievement of its goals depend in large measure upon the active and
orderly participation of employees, individually and through their representatives, at every level
of safety and health activity. To help ensure that employees are, in fact, free to participate in
safety and health activities, Section 11(c) of the Act prohibits any person from discharging or in
any manner retaliating against any employee because the employee has exercised rights under
the Act. These rights include complaining to OSHA and seeking an OSHA inspection,
participating in an OSHA inspection, and participating or testifying in any proceeding related to
an OSHA inspection. OSHA also administers the whistleblowing provisions of sixteen other
statutes, protecting employees who report violations of various trucking, airline, nuclear power,
pipeline, environmental, rail, [and] consumer product and securities laws. A person filing a
complaint of discrimination or retaliation will be required to show that he or she engaged in
protected activity, the employer knew about that activity, the employer subjected him or her to
an adverse employment action, and the protected activity contributed to the adverse action.
Adverse employment action is generally defined as a material change in the terms or conditions
of employment (United States Department of Labor)

Appropriateness:

This article clearly defines what whistleblower rights are and where to report the violation of
them. This is a government website and is a reliable source.
Working Thesis

Workplace hostility is becoming a controversial topic. Although there is a step-by-step

procedure in which to handle workplace hostility, the process may be long and results are not

guaranteed. Court cases such as Scruggs v. Garst Seed Co. clearly define that employees actions

are scrutinized as closely as an employers, and proper procedures must be followed.