Hurwitz Law

Michigan Public School Employee Misclassification

2025-12-04T08:45:35Z

Michigan Public School Employee Misclassification

Across Michigan, thousands of individuals are hired by school districts as “contract workers,” “third-party employees,” or “non-district staff,” even though they perform the same work, under the same supervision, and with the same responsibilities as regular district employees. If this has happened to you, your school district may have illegally misclassified you, costing you years of retirement credit, pension contributions, and other employee benefits you were legally entitled to receive. This practice is not just unfair, it may violate Michigan law as well as IRS regulations.

What Is Misclassification?

“Misclassification” occurs when a public school district labels a worker as something other than an employee, usually a contract employee, even though the district controls the worker’s job duties, schedule, training, discipline, and day-to-day work. School districts often do this by routing paychecks through third-party staffing agencies. However, under the law, the label does not control. What matters is the economic reality of the working relationship. If the district controlled your work, the law likely considers you a district employee, regardless of your title.

Michigan Law Protects You: MPSERS Eligibility Depends on the Job You Performed—Not Who Cut Your Paycheck.

The Michigan Public School Employees’ Retirement Act (“MPSER”) requires that employees performing core school functions be included in MPSER. Michigan courts have repeatedly held that districts cannot avoid this obligation simply by outsourcing payroll or by calling someone a “contractor.” In two landmark decisions, Michigan Courts have made this clear. In 2013, The Michigan Court of Appeals held that workers employed through a third-party staffing agency, but who were supervised by and performed core functions for a school district, could still qualify as school employees for retirement purposes. In 2020, the Court reaffirmed that MPSER eligibility hinges on the economic reality test, which examines many factors including:

Who controls the work
Who directs and supervises the worker
Whether the work is integral to the school’s mission
How the worker is compensated

IRS Violations: Many Misclassified Workers Were Also Illegally Excluded From 403(b) Retirement Plan Enrollment.

In addition to MPSER violations, affected employees may have recourse through the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Many school districts offer a 403(b)-retirement plan, which are often administered by outside companies. Under IRS Code §403(b), all employees must be allowed to participate unless they fall under a narrow set of exceptions. Misclassification is not a lawful exception. If you were denied the right to make 403(b) contributions because the district labeled you a contractor, your employer may have violated federal tax law and IRS universal availability rules. Our office is actively investigating misclassification cases across Michigan and representing individuals who were wrongfully denied retirement benefits by public school districts. We can help you:

Determine whether you were misclassified
Calculate your lost retirement earnings
Demand corrective contributions
Pursue claims against your district
Protect your rights under state and federal law

If you believe you were misclassified by a Michigan school district, denied MPSERS benefits, or excluded from a 403(b) plan, contact us for a free case evaluation. Your retirement matters—and the law is on your side.

Medical Documentation to Support Your Non-Economic Pain and Suffering Damages

2025-06-13T05:22:02Z

Medical Documentation to Support Your Non-Economic Pain and Suffering Damages For any lawsuit that includes claims of emotional or physical damage, it is common, and often necessary to produce supporting medical documentation. Alleging injury due to an employer’s conduct can result in compensatory damages, meaning emotional distress, pain and suffering, and mental anguish, as well as out of pocket costs for medical, psychological, or physical treatments. A jury evaluating whether to award a large verdict will want to make sure that an employee’s claims of mental or physical damages are substantiated, and will do so by requesting your medical records. The process begins by signing an authorization form for your medical records to be retrieved from providers. From there, you can anticipate that you will be questioned during deposition regarding the medical records and asked to explain why you suffered injury. For compensatory damage, it benefits an employee to have evidence of both “actual injury, which requires a degree of specificity; and may be supported by corroborating testimony or medical or psychological evidence” as well as “a causal relationship between the discriminatory conduct and the emotional harm”. By providing medical documentation to your attorney, you are giving them the ability to establish these evidentiary requirements. At Hurwitz Law PLLC, we understand that the idea of providing sensitive medical information is very scary for privacy reasons, but the medical records provided during the court of litigation will be kept confidential. What you need to understand is that access to medical records is not meant to invade your privacy, but instead establish that the injuries you suffered can be corroborated by your medical history. If you have or are currently experiencing mental or physical distress due to your work, please email info@hurwitzlaw.com. We can help!

Your Legal Rights Were Violated—But You Still Have to Mitigate Your Damages

2025-07-23T20:17:58Z

Your Legal Rights Were Violated—But You Still Have to Mitigate Your Damages If an employee is unfairly separated from work, the doctrine of damages mitigation still requires the employee to search for a new job to lessen the employee’s lost wages. To ensure that a Plaintiff does not “abandon [their] job search and continue to recover back pay,” with “reasonable diligence” a Plaintiff must look for “comparative employment” to receive back pay awards or front pay awards from their previous employer. Put simply, following termination an individual is required to search for employment by applying for multiple job opportunities that they are qualified for within their field. Reasonable diligence can include applying to positions via the internet, speaking with friends or family members about open positions in the area, hand delivering resumes to businesses, consulting classified ads, or visiting state unemployment offices to inquire about employment. Comparative employment depends on the case’s jurisdiction, but in general would be a new position with opportunity for promotion, comparable job responsibilities, equivalent or higher compensation, similar working conditions, and a position with a similar status. A Plaintiff is not required to accept a demotion, go into another line of work, or take a “demeaning” position in order to mitigate damages. However, if a Plaintiff rejects a job that is comparative to their previous position, then they run the risk of forfeiting damage compensation from their previous employer. Mitigating damages does not exclusively include searching for employment until a new position is found. After around six months to a year of searching for comparative employment, an individual may opt to return to school or start a business. To prove failure to mitigate, an employer will have to show the courts that starting a business was not a comparative alternative to finding an equivalent position. An Employer can file an “affirmative defense” to prove that a Plaintiff did not properly attempt to mitigate damages for a variety of reasons. A failure to mitigate can be not looking for employment, finding new employment and quitting in a short period of time, or being discharged from a new position for misconduct. The employer bears the burden of proof to show the court that a Plaintiff did not use “reasonable diligence” when attempting to mitigate damages and has the right to request any documentation regarding an individual’s job search. Documentation could include job application confirmation emails, rejection letters, resumes, or applications. If you believe that you were unfairly terminated or have questions about mitigating damages in an employment case, Hurwitz Law can help! Please reach out to our firm at info@hurwitzlaw.com or call (844)-HURWITZ.

Medical Documentation to Support Your Non-Economic Pain and Suffering Damages

2025-06-13T05:22:22Z

Medical Documentation to Support Your Non-Economic Pain and Suffering Damages For any lawsuit that includes claims of emotional or physical damage, it is common, and often necessary to produce supporting medical documentation. Alleging injury due to an employer’s conduct can result in compensatory damages, meaning emotional distress, pain and suffering, and mental anguish, as well as out of pocket costs for medical, psychological, or physical treatments. If a company anticipates the possibility of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars, they will want to make sure that an employee’s claims of mental or physical damages, including pain and suffering are substantiated, and will do so by requesting your medical records. The process begins by signing an authorization form for your medical records to be retrieved from providers. From there, you can anticipate that as a deposition witness, you will be questioned regarding the medical records and asked to explain why you suffered damages for the company’s adverse action against you. Providing this medical documentation is critical to establishing that you suffered severe emotional distress. For compensatory damage, it benefits an employee to have evidence of both “actual injury, which requires a degree of specificity; and may be supported by corroborating testimony or medical or psychological evidence” as well as “a causal relationship between the discriminatory conduct and the emotional harm”. By providing medical documentation to your attorney, you are giving them the ability to establish these evidentiary requirements. At Hurwitz Law PLLC, we understand that the idea of providing sensitive medical information is very scary for privacy reasons, but the medical records provided during the court of litigation will be kept confidential. What you need to understand is that access to medical records is not meant to invade your privacy, but instead establish that the injuries you suffered can be corroborated by your medical history. Therefore, if you suffered a workplace injury and are dealing with physical and/or mental health issues, it is important to share the injury concerns with your medical providers and make sure that there is a medical history that you can later use to support your damages claim. At Hurwitz Law, we treat medical documentation with the utmost discretion and have a proven track record of representing clients who have suffered from unlawful actions in the workplace, including discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. If you have or are currently experiencing mental or physical distress due to your work, please email info@hurwitzlaw.com. We can help!

The FTC and NLRB are Trying to Eliminate Non-compete Agreements

2025-06-13T05:22:31Z

The FTC and NLRB are Trying to Eliminate Non-compete Agreements There appears to be a glimmer of hope for employees bound by strict contractual clauses, as the Federal Trade Commission has proposed a ban on non-compete agreements for employees. This shift in the FTC’s policy focus is currently receiving commentary from the public and we hope for more information in late Winter 2024. Along with the FTC attack on non-competes, a recent memo from Jennifer Abruzzo, General Counsel member for the National Labor Relations Board, states that broad non-compete clauses “chill employees from exercising their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act” and in turn is a violation of the NLRA. While Abruzzo outlines the unlawfulness that can exist by demanding non-competes, she does acknowledge the lawful use of narrowly adjusted non-compete clauses. Abruzzo’s memo comes after the NLRB issued a complaint against Berry Green Management Inc., a Michigan cannabis processor, and their non-compete agreement. The NLRB alleged the company had imposed “overly broad and unlawful non-solicitation and non-compete agreements” by barring employees from seeking work at any Michigan cannabis company for two years. The company entered a private settlement with the employees and were required to rescind the existing non-compete restrictions. The use of non-compete agreements has already been outlawed in California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma, but the recent developments in national agencies suggest these bans may expand soon! Non-compete agreements bar an employee from seeking employment at a perceived competitor in the same field as their former employer and/or a competitor within a certain geographical scope. While this provides substantial protection for the employer, the employee is extremely limited in their options in the event of resigning or being terminated by the employer. This imbalance undermines the principle of a free employment market by compromising an employee’s freedom to leave unsuitable working conditions by threat of severe financial burdens. Nevertheless, the U.S Government Accountability Office reports that 55% of employers utilize non-compete agreements, and 18% of U.S workers are currently tied to one. Despite common perceptions that these agreements are only entered into by high-wage workers, about 30% of all non-compete agreements apply to earners making less than $13 an hour. Low-wage workers may feel they have limited opportunities to negotiate different terms of employment and may not be able to join a union. Often tried in court, these agreements can be broken, but for low-wage workers, this may not be an option due to the fear of high costs of litigation. The FTC proposal and NLRB memo advocate for a more fair and balanced relationship between employees and their employers by eliminating the underlying threat of a non-compete. The recent actions of these agencies are likely to be met with dispute by businesses that benefit from the disproportionate advantage they receive from non-compete clauses. This includes the U.S Chamber of Commerce who has threatened to sue if the proposal is enacted. The FTC proposal was submitted on January 5^th and is open for comment until April 19^th. A final decision on the proposal is expected next Spring. Hurwitz Law has advocated for many employees harmed by non-compete agreements. Schedule a paid consultation to review the options, which includes potentially proactive ways to lessen the harm caused by restrictive covenants, including non-compete and non-solicitation agreements. If it is too late for a proactive approach because you have already received a Cease and Desist Letter or been served with a lawsuit alleging that you breached your employment agreement, Hurwitz Law PLLC can defend you, explain why your new job opportunity is not posing a competitive business threat to your former employer, and mitigate the harm to your career that is at risk if you do not retain counsel. Please email info@hurwitzlaw.com for more information.

The Department of Labor Proposes a Much Needed Salary Increase for Employees Exempt from Overtime Pay

2025-06-13T05:22:36Z

The Department of Labor Proposes a Much Needed Salary Increase for Employees Exempt from Overtime Pay On August 30, 2023, the United States Department of Labor announced a much-needed proposed change in regulations under section 13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act to increase the overtime pay requirements for all employees working in executive, administrative, and professional capacities who were previously exempt from receiving overtime pay. The new rule would guarantee overtime pay for salaried employees making less than $1,059 per week, which is equal to about $55,000 per year. The new pay increase would mean nearly a 55% increase from the 2019 salary requirement passed by the Trump Era Department of Labor which set the no overtime threshold at $684 per week ($35,500 per year), and would expand overtime protections for roughly 3.9 million American workers. “For over 80 years, a cornerstone of workers’ rights in this country is the right to a 40-hour workweek, the promise that you get to go home after 40 hours or you get higher pay for each hour that you spend laboring away from your loved ones,” said DOL Acting Secretary of the Julie Su. If this rule becomes the law, employers will have to either (a) increase the salary of their full-time employees to ensure that they remain exempt; (b) redesignate a position as non-exempt and pay employees overtime; or (c) reevaluate employee salary structure and move employees from salaried to hourly positions. Along with an overtime threshold increase, the proposal would update the salary threshold every three years to reflect changes in earning data. The increases would automatically be tied to the 35^th percentile of weekly earnings for non-hourly full-time employees in the lowest-wage census region – currently the South. Attorneys and legal observers on both sides expect challenges to the DOLs regulations. In 2017 the Obama administration proposed a similar change which would increase the then $455 per week minimum pay requirement to $913 per year (or from $23,500 per year to $47,500 per year). However, a federal judge blocked the new regulations in December 2016 a week before they were initially meant to go into effect. A federal judge from Texas ultimately ended Obama’s overtime increase aspirations in 2017 when he ruled to strike down the regulation completely. The DOL’s proposal is open for public comment for 60 days, all of which will be reviewed before the department publishes its final rule. Hurwitz Law favors the increase because it is too often that we see employees making less than $40,000 a year who work incredibly long hours. We have even calculated that sometimes the total amount of hours, if paid straight time, would bring a salaried employee below the minimum wage. Hurwitz Law consistently files federal lawsuits against large companies to even the playing field for employees who are not paid for overtime but consistently being asked to work a huge amount of hours. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your eligibility for overtime pay or any concerns regarding your wages, please contact Info@hurwitzlaw.com.

Hurwitz Law Highlights Sexual Orientation Legal Protections During Gay Pride Month

2025-06-13T05:22:45Z

History of Pride Month In the 1960’s, the Stonewall Inn was a safe space for the LGBTQ+ community in a world where their very identity was criminalized; however, on June 28, 1969, police raided the inn, arresting and assaulting patrons in the process. This violence incited resistance in the community, provoking a five-day uprising led by trans women of color Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera. To honor the Stonewall Uprising, the last Sunday in June was declared “Gay Pride Day.” As support for the LGBTQ+ community expanded, so did the celebration, eventually encompassing the entire month of June which we now call Pride Month. During this month, parades and other special events take place to honor the decades-long struggle that LGBTQ+ individuals have faced. Since the Stonewall Uprising, there have been many major feats in the fight against LGBTQ+ discrimination. Two recent accomplishments include expansions of the protected categories in both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976 (ELCRA). Understanding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 At its creation, Title VII aimed to protect employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This prevented employers from implementing any adverse employment actions for reasons unrelated to the job. In a landmark 2020 decision, the United States Supreme Court decision ruled that the protections afforded in Title VII extend to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. Specifically, the court argued that firing an employee for their sexual orientation or gender identity amounts to firing them for traits that would not be questioned in individuals of another sex. This ruling significantly strengthens anti-discrimination cases and expands the understanding of sex-based discrimination. ELCRA’s New Amendment Similar to Title VII, Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976 prohibited discrimination in employment, housing, public services, and education based on these protected categories: religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial or marital status. On March 16, 2023, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed an amendment to ELCRA, officially adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” as protected categories. The amendment codified the 2022 Michigan Supreme Court ruling, which ruled that [d]iscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily constitutes discrimination because of sex.” Rouch World, LLC v Dept of Civil Rights, 510 Mich 398, 433; 987 NW2d 501 (2022). The court reasoned that a person’s own sexual orientation is typically determined in reference to their own sex and therefore discrimination against orientation is inherently linked to discrimination based on sex. Hurwitz Law and the National Fight Against Discrimination These added protections come at a critical time when LGBTQ+ individuals across the nation are at risk of losing their hard-fought rights. According to the ACLU, there are over 400 anti-LGBTQ+ bills currently advancing through various legislatures. While many states do not have anti-discrimination laws in place covering sexual orientation and gender identity, 49 states have laws covering either “sex” or “gender.” Based on the recent interpretations of both Title VII and ELCRA, it seems optimistic that other states may expand their sex-based discrimination language as well. Nearly half of LGBTQ+ workers have experienced unfair treatment at work. While discrimination at work can be overt or serve, including refusal to hire, refusal to promote, termination, or harassment after an employer learns an employee is part of the LGBTQ+ community, it can often be very subtle. This can include inadequate healthcare coverage for LGBTQ+ people that may have different healthcare needs from their coworkers, unsafe or inaccessible bathrooms, or a toxic workplace culture that permits negative comments, slurs or jokes about LGBTQ+ people at work. Here at Hurwitz Law, we are committed to advocating for the rights of all people. If you believe that you are being discriminated against based on your sexual orientation or gender identity, we encourage you to reach out to us at info@hurwitzlaw.com.

Hurwitz Law Celebrates Women’s History Month And Fights For Equal Pay

2025-06-13T05:22:49Z

March is Women’s History Month, and soon it will be March 21, which is Equal Pay Day. What an excellent time to reflect on how far women’s rights have come in this country and be mindful of inequities that still exist. At Hurwitz Law we litigate claims of gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and pay equity gaps. Very few law firms are willing to fight for equal pay because damages are limited to wage differential. Hurwitz Law does not take a case based on the potential value of the damages—we take a case based on the strength of liability. Meaning, if you are a female being paid substantially less than your similarly situated colleagues, please do not stay silent. Send us an email at Info@hurwitzlaw.com and raise the issue for our awareness. Our firm has prevailed in eight pay equity cases in the last year alone. Gender-based wage discrimination is a centuries-old problem that was heightened during World War II when millions of women began working while many men enlisted in the military. To address the increasingly visible issue, the National War Labor Board endorsed policies to provide equal pay. The Women’s Equal Pay Act legislation to make it illegal to pay women less than men for work of “comparable quality and quantity” was introduced in 1945, but was not passed until 18 years later during John F. Kennedy’s presidency. The Equal Pay Act, passed in 1963, mandates that employers give men and women working jobs that require “equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions” equal pay. The law allows unequal pay on the basis of “merit, seniority, workers’ quality or quantity of production and other factors not determined by gender.” The Educational Amendment of 1972 later expanded the Act to include white-collar executive, professional, and administrative jobs. Achieving pay equality is an ongoing battle. Today, women make less than men in comparable positions. Overall, they earn about 82 cents for every dollar men earn, but the gap widens even further for women of color. Black women earn about 63 cents on the dollar, and Latina women earn 58 cents. This gap in pay varies across education levels, fields, and locations. The numerous studies that affirm the existence of the gap cannot be delegitimized. Data is remarkably clear and consistent. The average working woman loses more than a staggering $530,000 over the course of her lifetime because of the gap, and the average college educated woman loses even more—nearly $800,000. There is much confusion over what attributes to the problem While many argue that this persisting gender pay gap exists because women don’t negotiate their salaries as shrewdly as men, that is simply not the case. Instead, the gap persists because of both “sticky floors” and “glass ceilings.” Sticky floors are disadvantages women face throughout their careers. Obstacles include bosses underestimating female competency or qualifications when making job offers. Sticky floors account for about 40% of the gap, while glass ceilings account for 60%. While the Equal Pay Act and the Educational Amendment were significant steps toward closing the gap, more should be done. The government should first raise the minimum wage and tipped minimum wage, as the disparity is the largest amongst low-wage workers, of which women make up a disproportionate share. There are should also be greater investment in affordable, high-quality childcare and early child education to better support working mothers ability to keep their jobs and excel in the workforce. Employers can institute protected sick days. 40% of private-sector workers do not get any sick days, and for part-time workers, that figure rises to a shocking 73%. This means that women, who most often care for sick family members, can lose pay or even their jobs just because they or their child gets sick. Employees can also actively work to support pay transparency so that women have better tools to address pay discrimination. If you believe that you are not being paid fairly on account of your gender identity, contact our firm. We can help!

Raising Awareness of Racial Discrimination During Black History Month

2025-06-13T05:22:57Z

Black History Month and Employment Protections

February is Black History Month. It was established to remember and honor the contributions and legacy of Black Americans across the United States, as well as to consider that systemic racism persists and to foster discussion on inspiring change. Issues of race, class, and employment have been intertwined throughout U.S. history. Progressive leaders like Fredrick Douglass, W.E.B. Dubois, A. Philip Randolph, and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. saw unions as essential to achieving equality for Black workers. In fact, Randolph rallied around the slogan “Jobs and Freedom”, focusing on the economic dimension of equality. His work, alongside that of many other organizers, lawyers, and activists, led to foundational protections for minority groups in the workplace. However, despite some strides toward equity in the workplace, discrimination based on race, color, and nationality continues to impact thousands of workers each year.

Quick Statistics on Race, Color, and National Origin Discrimination in the Workplace

In 2021, the Gallup Center on Black Voices found that almost one in four Black employees in the U.S. report facing discrimination at work in the past year. In a follow-up question among those who perceived discrimination, 75% indicated that the discrimination they experienced was based on their race or ethnicity. This was significantly higher than White and Hispanic employees’ responses.

These devastating statistics highlight how critical it is to be aware of discrimination, laws prohibiting discrimination, and what to do when discrimination occurs.

Protections Against Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits race, color, and national origin discrimination. It specifically prohibits a range of discriminatory conduct, including refusing to hire an applicant, terminating an employee, refusing to promote an employee, demoting an employee, discriminating regarding employee’s terms of employment, classifying employees in a way that either deprives the employees opportunities or adversely affects their status, making statements in job advertisements that indicate a preference or limitation based on race, color, or national origin, or refusing or failing to prevent or eliminate harassment.

Title VII also prohibits retaliation against an applicant or employee if they discrimination, filed a charge of race, color, or national origin discrimination, or participated in an investigation relating to a claim of race, color, or national origin discrimination.

Types of Discriminatory Action in the Workplace

Under Title VII, race, color, and national origin are each distinct protected characteristics. In the context of this law, race” refers to an individual’s immutable personal characteristics ascribed to a certain race, including skin color, hair texture, certain facial features, and other characteristics that predominately impacts race. “Color” may overlap with race, but it specifically refers to an individual’s skin color, skin tone, or complexion. “National origin” may overlap as well, but it specifically refers to “the country where a person was born, or, more broadly, the country from which his or her ancestors came.”

While these characteristics are not exhaustive, there are various pieces of legislation that aim to address additional characteristics. For example, the CROWN Act ensures protection against discrimination based on hair style and texture in the workplace. While Michigan hasn’t passed the CROWN Act yet, Ann Arbor, Ingham County, and Genesee County each have local laws prohibiting this form of discrimination.

Disparate Treatment vs. Disparate Impact Discrimination

Disparate treatment is intentional discrimination, while disparate impact is unintentional. Disparate impact is more complicated and may be harder to prove, though it is a pervasive form of discrimination in the workplace.

The first disparate impact case was considered soon after Title VII was enacted. Prior to the law taking effect, the Duke Power Company’s plant in North Carolina openly discriminated against Black employees. They could only be employed in the labor department, which paid significantly less than jobs in other departments. When the law was passed, instead of continuing overt segregation, the Company adopted a requirement that applicants for hire or transfer to any department except the labor department, must have a high school diploma or achieve a satisfactory score on two IQ tests. As a sidenote, the first IQ test was designed to prove the racist fallacy that White people are more intelligent than Black people. The Supreme Court held that this policy had a disparate impact, finding that “practices, procedures, or tests neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent, cannot be maintained if they operate to ‘freeze’ the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.”. Because of the United States’ long history of providing inferior educational opportunities and resources to Black citizens, the policy did not allow equal opportunity.

What to do if You’ve Faced Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

If you’ve faced discrimination because of your race in the workplace, we encourage you to call us and speak to us confidentially about what’s happening. We’ll help you understand your rights, and work tirelessly to make things right.

When the Boss Uses a Position of Authority to Create a Sexually Hostile Work Environment

2025-07-23T20:13:26Z

Sexual harassment from a supervisor Sexual harassment in the workplace is complicated, especially when your harasser is a supervisor. Many employees find themselves drawn into sexual relationships with the boss. The question, can a sexual relationship with the boss ever truly be consensual? There is no easy answer to that question due to the difficult question of what triggers sexual attraction. Sexual attraction can be physical, it can be emotional. But what happens when sexual attraction arises from someone’s desire for job advancement, professional success, or job security. Very often we find in talking to our clients that what seems like a consensual relationship has the possibility of being an unlawful relationship When there is an inherent power dynamic in a relationship, one person will always have the upper hand, especially in the workplace. If the relationship turns sour (which is probable, since about 2 of 3 office relationships end in a breakup), your employment may be negatively impacted. Your employer is responsible when your supervisor harasses you The US Supreme Court has defined a supervisor as an employee empowered by an employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim. If you are harassed by your supervisor within the company, your employer is almost always legally responsible. Employers gave responsibility and power to these supervisors, which can enable them to harass those they have professional power over. How a power imbalance can be used by a superior A harasser who is in a position of power can leverage their standing against lower-level employees. Often, they use their position in hopes that you will not report them – this is one reason why this type of harassment is rarely reported. The threat of professional retaliation may be direct or implicit. A harasser may also use their position just to demonstrate their power – they might not be genuinely interested in a romantic or sexual relationship. They may do this to climb the corporate ladder, or they could have a personality that relies on asserting power. Regardless of their motivation, sexual harassment can take many forms. So if you find yourself in a sexual relationship at work with someone in a position of authority, please contact info@hurwitzlaw.com to better understand all of your options. Types of harassment you are protected from If your supervisor sexually harasses you, the harassment may be quid pro quo harassment or hostile work environment harassment (HWE). Quid pro quo means “this for that.” If a supervisor asks for sexual favors in exchange for a job benefit (a promotion or raise) or threatens a job detriment (a demotion or termination), that constitutes “quid pro quo” harassment. Your employer is liable for this situation. But, if the threat is not realized, this could be HWE instead. HWE is more common and more subjective. This kind of harassment is unwelcome. What to do if your supervisor is sexually harassing you Too often these situations go unreported out of fear of job retaliation, but allowing abusers to continue harassing their subordinate employees is wrong. If your supervisor is harassing you, you should immediately seek legal counsel by contacting info@hurwitzlaw.com. You deserve to work in a safe and productive work environment and receiving advice from an attorney is the best way to ensure that you are protected in that pursuit.