You may recall my post from a couple months ago about Brett Favre’s alleged harassment of a New York Jets employee, Jenn Sterger. The NFL has completed its investigation and has been unable to substantiate any allegations that Favre violated league policies. However, the commissioner did conclude that Favre failed to cooperate with the investigation and was less than candid so he fined him $50,000, which is pocket change to Favre. I was not going to bother commenting on this sorry spectacle until I happened to hear ESPN’s “legal analyst” on Sportscenter this morning. The analyst, who shall remain nameless, expressed the following opinions: 1) Sterger could sue Favre and the Jets, although there might be some statute of limitations issues; 2) Favre could be considered her supervisor because he was higher up the chain in the Jets organization than Sterger; and 3) if Sterger were to file suit, her case would likely get to a jury. The only question I had after hearing this was how can I get an analyst job at ESPN because I can do better than this.
First, Sterger has a serious problem with the statute of limitations but I will let that one pass since it was at least recognized as an issue. Assuming she can assert a timely claim, it seems very unlikely that Favre could be considered her supervisor, even if he is more highly placed in the Jets organization. As far as I know there is no evidence that Favre ever had any control, direct or indirect, over Sterger’s employment. As a result, the Jets would be held to a knew or should have known standard as to the alleged harassment. There was never any report of any harassment during employment so it is difficult to see how the Jets could be liable. More importantly, the standard for sexual harassment is very high – the harassment must be severe and pervasive by both objective and subjective standards. Here, we are talking about a few offensive calls and text messages (with photos) that appear to have been largely ignored by Sterger. She never reported the issue, even after leaving the Jets organization. I doubt that this case, if filed, would ever see a jury. The Jets would be able to have the case dismissed on a motion, likely early in the case. Of course, they would probably settle it to make it go away quietly so it does have some value.
I took a look at ESPN’s website and, in fairness, they now have a legal analysis posted that is accurate although the attorney who is responsible is not the one who commented earlier.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- FMLA
- EEOC
- Labor Law
- Immigration
- Department of Labor
- Wage & Hour
- NLRB
- Diversity
- Arbitration
- National Labor Relations Board
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Discrimination
- Coronavirus
- FLSA
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Social Media
- Sexual Harassment
- Sixth Circuit
- Employer Policies
- Title VII
- Employment Litigation
- Religion Discrimination
- Transgender Issues
- National Enforcement Plan
- Employer Rules
- Holiday Policies
- Workplace Violence
- Overtime Pay
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Artificial Intelligence
- Privacy
- Department of Justice
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Telework
- NLRA
- Compliance
- Paid Leave Laws
- Supreme Court
- Workplace Accommodations
- Federal Trade Commission
- Tax Credit
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Litigation
- IRS
- Worker Classification
- Harassment
- Disability Discrimination
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Medical Marijuana
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- ADAAA
- ERISA
- Race Discrimination
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Disability
- Whistleblower
- United States Supreme Court
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Privacy Laws
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- US Court of Appeals puts $100,000 H-1B Fee on Hold Again
- Asking Is Protected: Sixth Circuit Expands FMLA Retaliation Protections
- New DHS Rule Will Restrict Student Periods of Admission from Duration of Status to Fixed End Date
- TPS Haiti Termination: How Employers Can Ensure I-9 Records Remain Compliant
- A New Enforcement Era: What Employers Should Know About the EEOC’s 2025–2029 National Enforcement Plan
- Beyond Paid Time Off: The Legal Side of Holiday Policies
- EEO-1 Reporting on the Chopping Block: What Employers Need to Know
- DOL Proposes New Joint Employer Rule: What Employers Need to Know
- Arbitration Agreements Take a Hit: What the Sixth Circuit's EFAA Decision Means for Your Workplace Agreements
- Bourbon, Ballots, and Bargaining Orders: Sixth Circuit Rejects NLRB’s Cemex Framework