Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mugarolla" data-source="post: 2502823" data-attributes="member: 8481">Finally finished. Here is the issue. Even though it is public record, I did not show his name.This is from the Administrative law judge who ruled on the case.There is no dispute that UPS maintains an Anti-Harassment policy that prohibitsharassment of any person or group of persons on the basis of race, sex, national origin, disability,sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran/military status, pregnancy, age or religion. The Anti-Harassment policy also states that UPS will not tolerate derogatory or other inappropriateremarks, slurs, threats or jokes. Consistent with that language, UPS has a track record ofimmediately discharging employees who violate its Anti-Harassment policy. The Division Managertestified, without rebuttal, that the accused&#039;s May 9, 2015 posting violated UPS’s Anti-Harassmentpolicy and would have led to his immediate discharge.Based on the evidentiary record concerning the accused&#039;s May 9, 2015 remarks about his Center and Division Managers, I find that reinstatement is not an appropriate remedy because Respondent hasdemonstrated that, under its Anti-Harassment policy, it would have discharged any employee formaking remarks like the accused. I also find that the accused is not entitled to full backpay.However, since Respondent did not present evidence about when it first learned of the accused&#039;sMay 9, 2015 remarks, I will set June 21, 2016 (the day that UPS presented evidence at trialabout the accused&#039;s May 9, 2015 remarks – see Tr. 378–383), as the cutoff date for the accused&#039;sbackpay award.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mugarolla, post: 2502823, member: 8481"] Finally finished. Here is the issue. Even though it is public record, I did not show his name. This is from the Administrative law judge who ruled on the case. [I]There is no dispute that UPS maintains an Anti-Harassment policy that prohibits harassment of any person or group of persons on the basis of race, sex, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran/military status, pregnancy, age or religion. The Anti- Harassment policy also states that UPS will not tolerate derogatory or other inappropriate remarks, slurs, threats or jokes. Consistent with that language, UPS has a track record of immediately discharging employees who violate its Anti-Harassment policy. The Division Manager testified, without rebuttal, that the accused's May 9, 2015 posting violated UPS’s Anti-Harassment policy and would have led to his immediate discharge. Based on the evidentiary record concerning the accused's May 9, 2015 remarks about his Center and Division Managers, I find that reinstatement is not an appropriate remedy because Respondent has demonstrated that, under its Anti-Harassment policy, it would have discharged any employee for making remarks like the accused. I also find that the accused is not entitled to full backpay. However, since Respondent did not present evidence about when it first learned of the accused's May 9, 2015 remarks, I will set June 21, 2016 (the day that UPS presented evidence at trial about the accused's May 9, 2015 remarks – see Tr. 378–383), as the cutoff date for the accused's backpay award.[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification