- Hire a professional bartender, one who is trained to notice signs of intoxication.
- In addition to beverages, serve food, which slows the absorption of alcohol and, hopefully, reduces the amount of alcohol consumed.
- Offer soft drinks as well as alcohol. With surprising frequency, holiday parties overlook soft drinks and/or make them less available to attendees. Offer a variety of soft drinks so that guests do not feel pressured into drinking alcohol.
- Have one or more designated drivers available. Instruct these persons to monitor the crowd for potential problems and to take the initiative in offering rides to suspect individuals.
- Before the party, make it known that employees are expected to behave responsibly during the party.
About the Firm
Attorney Brian H. Alligood provides top quality, aggressive legal representation to individuals and businesses throughout North Carolina. Mr. Alligood regularly represents parties in disputes arising from all aspects of the employer-employee relationship. Employment issues frequently litigated include claims of discriminatory hiring and employment practices, sexual harassment, retaliation and wrongful discharge, wage and hour violations, breach of contract and no-compete covenants, and employee benefits litigation. In addition to confronting claims of traditional employment discrimination, Mr. Alligood represents parties with respect to statutory rights and obligations imposed by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family Medical Leave Act.
Mr. Alligood regularly appears in all North Carolina state and federal courts and administrative agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the North Carolina Department of Labor, and the Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (OFCCP).
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
On November 26, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the employment law case of Vance v. Ball State University. One issue in the case is whether the harasser is a “supervisor” such that the employer can be held vicariously liable for her actions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that allows employees to sue for work place harassment.
Many lower courts have defined “supervisor” narrowly as someone with the power to "hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline" employees. Other courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have adopted a broader definition, finding that someone who directs other employees’ daily work activities is a supervisor. The distinction is important in employment discrimination matters. If a supervisor is harassing an employee, the employer can be held liable. On the other hand, if a mere co-worker harasses another co-worker, the employer is liable only if it knew or reasonably should have known about the harassment and did nothing to stop it.
The Vance case arises from a “hostile work environment” among the catering staff at Ball State University. Maetta Vance, an African American female, alleged that she was subjected to racial hostility from her white co-worker, Saundra Davis. Ms. Davis had some control over Ms. Vance’s daily work schedule, but Ms. Davis had no authority to fire her. After years of alleged antagonism, Ms. Vance filed a lawsuit against the university.
In Vance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to throw out Ms. Vance’s lawsuit. In doing so, the 7th Circuit endorsed the narrow definition and affirmed the trial court’s decision that since Ms. Davis could not fire Ms. Vance, she was not a “supervisor” and the university could not be held vicariously liable for her actions.
According to several news sources, the Court hinted during oral arguments that Vance ultimately may not be the best case for resolving the question of who is a supervisor because of the disputed facts of the case. However, if and/or when the Court does ultimately decide the issue, its holding is likely to have a significant impact on North Carolina employment law, as the Court’s decision could greatly expand or restrict the ability of employees to bring harassment complaints against co-workers that do not meet the narrow definition of “supervisor.”
If you are confronting issues of work place harassment, it is important to speak with experienced North Carolina employment lawyers, as employment discrimination law raises many complex legal questions shaped by an evolving body of case law. Please feel free to contact me directly at (336) 333-6375 to discuss this Supreme Court activity or North Carolina employment law matters. For more information about my Greensboro law firm of Sharpless & Stavola, please visit our website at www.sharpless-stavola.com.
Friday, November 30, 2012
North Carolina Court of Appeals allows Employment Law Action to proceed against State University despite Sovereign Immunity argument
Friday, November 23, 2012
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
Please feel free to contact me directly at (336) 333-6375 to discuss this case or other North Carolina employment law matters. For more information about my Greensboro law firm of Sharpless & Stavola, please visit our website at www.sharpless-stavola.com.