Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier
It provides the NH Statutes pertinent.
|
The RSA supports what I've been saying. Jokes and locker room humor are not enough. Typically, Federal and State statutes, like NH RSA 354-A: 6 & 7, prohibit discrimination based on an employee's protected class. NH RSA 354-A: 6 states that it is discriminatory for an employer to refuse to hire or employ or to otherwise discriminate against an employee because of age, sex, gender identity, race, color, marital status, physical or mental disability, religious creed, or national origin. RSA 354-A: 7 prohibits harassment, such as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Such behavior must include one of the following: (a) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment; (b) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or
(c) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
What is not said in the RSA, and is required when proving such cases, is that the individual making the accusation must have a reasonable belief that they are being discriminated against, meaning that some level of reasonableness is the standard that the person being effected cannot perform his or her duties because of the conduct.
You are correct, the papers did not remove the chief. Based on what was in the article, it was the allegations about assignments and overtime that triggered the investigation, not his allegedly boorish conduct or poor performance. I agree about the Board's analysis, the Board weighed the likelihood of legal action in retaining the chief by the union and/or individuals offended by his conduct versus the likelihood of legal action in dismissing the chief by the chief. However, I am not sure what role his retirement plays. He may argue that his retirement essentially was a constructive dismissal. It will be interesting to see what happens.