Potential Claim for Terminating a Borrowed Employee
Employers occasionally have staffing firms supply them with workers. While it is normally easy to replace such temporary workers if they don’t work out, employers must nevertheless exercise caution when terminating the relationship.
The Illinois Appellate Court, in a case of first impression, recently held that an employee of a staffing company may file suit for retaliatory discharge against the customer of the staffing company.
Case Synopsis:
Carrie Hester alleged that her employer, Manpower, Inc. (“Manpower”), assigned her to work at Glister-Mary Lee Corp. (“Glister”) and that Glister was her “de facto employer.” Ms. Hester had given testimony in a workers’ compensation case filed by another Glister employee against Glister. The very next day, Glister told Ms. Hester that her services were no longer required and that if she desired other employment she would need to return to Manpower. Ms. Hester sued Glister for retaliatory discharge.
Glister then filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Ms. Hester’s employer was Manpower and that Glister had not discharged her. The trial court granted Glister’s motion, and Ms. Hester appealed.
On appeal, the issue was whether a “borrowed employee” may maintain an action for retaliatory discharge against a “borrowing employer” when the borrowing employer terminates the borrowed employee’s employment for testifying about a workers’ compensation claim of a co-worker.
The Appellate Court held that the borrowed employee may pursue the claim.
Hester v. Gilster-Mary Lee Corp., 386 Ill.App.3d, 1104, 899 N.E.2d 589 (5th Dist. 2008).
Sexual Harassment Claims
Apparently employers are still not “getting it” when it comes to sexual harassment.
According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), there were more than 32,500 harassment charges filed with the EEOC and state or local agencies nationwide in fiscal year 2008. Sadly, nearly 14,000 of those charges alleged sexual harassment – an increase of 11% from the prior year, and the highest level since fiscal year 2002. Of the total sexual harassment charges, 16% were filed by men – up from 12% in the late 1990s.
The EEOC also recently reported two sexual harassment matters that smacked large employers:
- AutoZone. A Phoenix jury rendered a unanimous verdict in a sexual harassment lawsuit in favor of the EEOC against Tennessee-based national auto parts retail giant, AutoZone, Inc. The employee in question complained about an egregiously hostile work environment by the store manager, but AutoZone failed to take immediate and appropriate action to put an end to it. The verdict was for $65,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.
- Dillards. The EEOC announced that national retail chain Dillard’s, Inc. will pay $110,000 and provide significant remedial relief to settle a same-sex harassment lawsuit involving two male victims at its Fashion Square Mall store in Orlando, Florida.
Employers would be wise to have in place effective anti-harassment policies and conduct anti-harassment training for their managers and employees, both of which should be developed with consultation from attorneys who specialize in the area of labor and employment relations. Having an employee assistance program (EAP) in place is another tool that can help identify and resolve problems before they escalate, saving businesses tremendous costs in legal fees and brand damage.
Jon Vegosen is a founding member of Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn Ltd. and has more than 32 years experience practicing law. He is nationally recognized for his work in labor and employment relations and is sought after as an author and spokesperson on labor and employment issues.
Tags: lawsuit, legal case, settlement, Sexual Harassment, staffing agency, temporary employee
Leave a Reply