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
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Employment Litigation
- Employer Rules
- Wage & Hour
- Labor Law
- Discrimination
- EEOC
- Worker Classification
- Department of Labor
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Artificial Intelligence
- Coronavirus
- NLRB
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Title VII
- OSHA
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Compliance
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Religion Discrimination
- Harassment
- FLSA
- Department of Justice
- Supreme Court
- National Labor Relations Board
- NLRA
- Privacy
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Diversity
- Arbitration
- FMLA
- Federal Trade Commission
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Workplace Accommodations
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Overtime Pay
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Litigation
- IRS
- Medical Marijuana
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Whistleblower
- Technology
- Sexual Harassment
- United States Supreme Court
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Sixth Circuit
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Privacy Laws
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Representative Election Regulations
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- 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
- No Free Delivery: Misclassification Comes at a Price
- One Tweet Away From Trouble: Social Media at Work
- Outsourcing Hiring Won’t Outsource Risk: Implications for Employers Using AI in Hiring
- No Intent, No Liability: Sixth Circuit Narrows Employer Liability for Third-Party Harassment
- AI in Hiring: The Promise, the Pitfalls, and the Response
- Two Big Beautiful Tax Deductions: What Employers Need to Know
- OSHA’s Updated Inspection Program: What Employers Should Know and Expect
- SCOTUS Lowers Bar for Reverse Discrimination Claims
- Revisiting ADA Compliance: Lessons from a Recent Court Decision
- Federal Court Strikes Down Part of EEOC Rule Requiring Accommodations for Elective Abortion Under the PWFA