2023 Vol. 107 No. 6

Hoosier Banker 19 A FULL SERVICE LAW FIRM WITH A SIMPLE PROMISE, PUT YOU FIRST. INDIANA | ILLINOIS | MISSOURI | OHIO | WISCONSIN WWW.AMUNDSENDAVISLAW.COM 201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1400 Capital Center, South Tower Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 }ɘʇȠȞȤɉȡȣȡɉȡȞȝȝʇɓʇ4ɘʇȠȞȤɉȡȣȡɉȡȞȝȞ was aware of the conduct. The employee told the customer she did not want to go out with him but he continued to send her notes that she found disturbing. She showed the notes to her manager. Nothing was done. The customer then began coming into the branch asking for the employee and telling others how he was going to get a date with the employee. Co-workers thought the customer's conduct was “creepy” and a corporate trainer told her to call the police but management did not take any action. The customer then sent her flowers and a card that was inappropriate. The employee showed the card to her managers, who told her they thought the situation seemed like it was getting dangerous. The employee told her manager that she did not want the customer to be allowed in the branch. The manager told the employee to call the customer and let him know about her concerns. The conduct continued, including at charity events and in the branch. At one point, the manager suggested that the employee should just “hide in the break room.” Eventually, the employee became fraught with anxiety and asked that the customer’s account be closed and to be transferred to another branch. At that point, the bank finally took action and ultimately closed the account and told the customer not to return. The employee resigned and sued the bank for hostile work environment sex discrimination under Title VII and state law. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, but the federal court of appeals reversed that decision. The court noted that an employer may be held liable for sexual harassment by a non-employee (customer) where the “employer either ratifies or acquiesces in the harassment by not taking immediate and/or corrective actions when it knew or should have known of the conduct.” The court explained that an employer must take corrective measures that are “reasonably calculated to end the harassment.” The reasonableness of the employer’s actions depends on how promptly the employer acts and how much control the employer has over the alleged harasser. What actions can or should a business take when a customer (or other nonemployee) harasses an employee? Each situation is different and of course it depends on the nature of the conduct (e.g., inappropriate verbal comments, groping, assault) and the degree of control the business has over the third party, but the most important thing is that the employer take action upon learning of the conduct. When the harasser is a customer and the issue is not severe, the matter might be resolved by having a conversation with the customer and having other employees service the customer so that the affected employee does not have to interact with that customer. Other situations may call for removing the customer from the premises or banning the customer from the employer’s physical premises and further contact with its employees. If the alleged harasser is an employee of a customer, the matter might be turned

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTg3NDExNQ==