HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/11/02 Item 12•
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
•
0
I
e
a
i
d
h
a
Item 12
~,~ Meeting Date 11/2/82
.M TITLE: Resolution //o.S~} Adopti g Sexual Harassment Policy
3MITTED BY: Director of Pers nne3. (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
e City currently has an affirmative action policy prohibiting discrimination
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or handicap.
the past several years, discrimination on the basis of sex has been
panded to include sexual harassment in the work place. Council has asked
aff to develop a program of training employees about their responsibilities
this area. Since the concept of sexual harassment i s new to many managers
d employees, a policy statement defining and prohibiting sexual harassment
necessary. Based on the policy statement a training program will be
veloped for all City employees on how to detect, report and prevent sexual
scrimination in the form of sexual harassment. A review of sexual
rassment policies in other areas of the United States, as well as the City
d County of San Diego has resulted in a policy statement for the City of
ula Vista. Therefore, it is my
TION: That Council adopt the resolution.
• BQARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
d
I
Legislative Histow
ongress did not consider the issue of sexual harassment when it prohibited
scrimination on the basi s of sex under Ti tl e VI I of the Ci vi 1 Rights Act.
~ early cases, the courts were reluctant to extend the coverage of Ti tl e VI I
cases involving unwanted sexual attention (Barnes v. Train). In one early
se, sexual harassment was found to involve a violation of the employment
~ntract (Monge v. Beebe Rubber). Gradually since the case law under Title
I has begun to evolve, Title VII was found to prohibit sexual harassment
Barnes v. Castle; Corne v. Bausch and Lomb). Employers were held responsible
~r harassment of their supervisors (Barnes v. Castle; Heelan v.
rhns-Manville, Cor.), and for employees' actions in the course of employment
filler v. Bank of America). Such findings were mitigated somewhat by a
~cision that employer acquiescence in practice was required to hold that
iployer responsible for acts of its employees (Garber v. Saxon Business
°oducts). Some cases found Title VII applied only when terms and conditions
employment were involved in harassment (Heelan v. Johns-Manville, Corp.;
~mpkins v. PSE&GC). Perhaps the most far reaching decision found that an
nployer which created or condoned a discriminatory work environment was in