PENN-TRAFFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT

Sexual Harassment Part 3

APPENDIX D

PENN-TRAFFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT
POLICY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT,
HARASSMENT BASED ON RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN,
DISABILITY AND RELIGION
AND
HARASSMENT BASED ON BULLYING AND INTIMIDATION

APPROVED: JANUARY 11, 1982

REVISED

PENN - TRAFFORD POLICY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT,
HARASSMENT BASED ON RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, DISABILITY AND RELIGION,
AND HARASSMENT BASED ON BULLYING AND INTIMIDATION

I. Policy Intent:
To help assure that employees and non-employees be permitted to work in an environment free from unsolicited and unwelcome sexual advances and unwanted harassment based on race, national origin, disability and religion,or harassment based on bullying and intimidation the Penn-Trafford School District expresses strong disapproval of sexual harassment, harassment based on race, national origin, disability and religion, and harassment based on bullying and intimidation will inform employees of their rights under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Acts, and will develop appropriate sanctions and complaint procedures
II. Definition:
-Sexual harassment is unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.
-Harassment based on race, national origin, disability or religion is physical or verbal conduct relating to a person's race, national origin, disability or religion that creates an unwelcome learning or working environment.
-Harassment based on bullying or intimidation consists of a pattern of abuse over time and involves a person being picked on, a power imbalance between victim and bully, an intent to harm, and repeated acts, which impact the victim negatively.

Employee is an employer, employment agency, apprenticeship committee or labor organization.
III. History:
Harassment on the basis of sex, race, national origin, disability or religion is a violation of - 45 CFR, Parts 81, 86
- Section 703 of Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- Education Amendments of 1972, Title IX
- Section 5 (a) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act of October 27, 1955.
- Section 504 of the Education Act of 1973
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000-6)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Act (EEOC) of 1972
- Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
- Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
- The Pennsylvanla Human Relations Commission has adopted Guidelines for Sexual Harassment similar to these used by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- HB 2178
IV. Rationale:
Prevention is the best tool for the elimination of sexual harassment, harassment based on race, national origin, disability and religion and harassment based on bullying and intimidation.

Necessary steps of Prevention:
A. Employer should affirmatively raise subject
B. Employer should express strong disapproval
C. Employer should develop appropriate sanctions
D. Employer should inform employees of their right to raise and the procedure to raise the issue of harassment
E. Employer should develop methods to sensitize all concerned.

POLICY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT, HARASSMENT BASED ON RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, DISABILITY AND RELIGION, AND HARASSMENT BASED ON BULLYING AND INTIMIDATION-CONTINUED

V. Complaints: Sexual Harassment
Complaints of sexual harassment will be decided by the Human Relations Commission with the following guidelines:

A. Unwelcomed sexual advances and requests or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when:

(1) submission to such is made, either explicity or implicity, a term or condition of employment;
(2) submission to rejection of such conduct is used as a basis for future employment decisions affecting the individual;
(3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with one's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.

B. The Commission will look at the record as a whole in determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment.

C. The Commission will review the prevention policies for elimination of sexual harassment. Such policies include informing employees of their rights under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, development appropriate sanctions and expressing strong disapproval of sexual harassment.

VI. Complaints: Other Harassment
Complaints of harassment based on race, national origin, disability or religion and harassment based on bullying and intimidation will be decided by the administraton based on the proceudres addressed in the harassment policy based on race, national origin, disability and religion, bullying and intimidation.

VlI. Responsibilities of Employer:

A. An employer is responsible for its acts and those of its supervisory employees with respect to sexual harassment, harassment based on race, national origin, disabiliy and religion, and harassment based on bullying and intimidation regardless of whether the specific acts complained of were authorized or even forbidden by the employer and regardless of whether the employer had knowledge of their occurrence.

B. The employer is responsible for the conduct between fellow employees unless it can prove it took immediate and appropriate corrective action.

C. The employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees. The Commission will consider the extent of the employer's control and legal responsibility for these non-employees.

D. The employer may be held liable for unlawful sex discrimination against other persons who were qualified but denied employment opportunities because another individuals submission to an employer's sexual advances resulted in gained employment opportunities or benefits.

LEGAL BASES: SEXUAL HARASSMENT

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS

Areas of the constitution where claims have been advanced include: fundamental due process rights, first amendment rights, or liberty rights. As public employers, school districts and school officials may be vulnerable that sexual harassment violates protected constitutional rights of teachers and students.

U.S.C. Section 1983 provides that: "every person who, under color of (law) subjects or causes to be subjected any . . . person within the jurisdiction [of the United States] to the deprecation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law or suit in equity." In Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District 882 F.2d 720 (3rd Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1044 (1990), a federal district court held that a school district can be held liable to a student for the actions of an employee in a sexual harassment context. However, in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services 489 U.S. 189 (1989), the court ruled that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment provides no constitutional right to be protected by the state from invasion by private parties. The school officials could be held liable under only two theories. First, the school officials were recklessly indifferent in allegedly failing to make clear to the band director that criminal assaults are impermissible and second, the school district failed to train its employees to deal with allegations of child abuse. It should be suggested in a sexual harassment case where a student alleges a constitutional violation under Section 1983, the school district should contend that state tort remedies can adequately redress the student's claims.

Federal Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

Sexual harassment in educational institutions is not simply inappropriate behavior, it is against the law. Title IX, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq. provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation In, be denied the benefit of, or be subject to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance . . ."

Title IX clearly protects students, faculty and staff in education institutions. The courts have interpreted Title IX by borrowing many of the principles developed under Title VII. In the case of Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (February 26, 1992) the Supreme Court held that Title IX places a duty on schools not to discriminate on the basis of sex and further held that the sexual harassment and abuse of a student constitutes sex discrimination. The court then went a step further and found that students subject to such discrimination are entitled not only to injunctive relief, but are also entitled to monetary damages for any harm suffered .

LEGAL BASES: SEXUAL HARASSMENT - CONTINUED

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. does not specifically prohibit sexual harassment, but in 1976, there was a judicial recognition that Title Vll prohibits sexual harassment. In 1980, federal regulations were issued which codified the judicial decisions prohibiting sexual harassment as follows: "Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of section 703 of Title Vll. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when 1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, 2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or 3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. EEOC, 29 CFR 1604.1 1 .

The key court decision on this interpretation came in 1986 in Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson. 477 U.S. 57 (1986). From the Meritor case two kinds of sexual harassment were identified. Quid pro quo case involving loss of economic benefits, and the hostile environment case. The Surpreme declined to rule in the Meritor case on that of employer liability. The Surpreme Court deferred to agency principles in the various states. This sent liability decisions into the district courts to rule on the merit of each case. Examples of cases since the Meritor decision are summarized below.

*Procedure recommended by Steele & Hoffman

Paroline v. Unisys Corp., 879 F. 2nd 100 (4th Cir. 1989). The court adopted a dual standard to determine whether the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive; the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the harassment interfered with her ability to perform her work or significantly affected her psychological well-being; and second, that the harassment would interfere with the work performance or significantly affect the psychological well-being of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position.

Yates v. Avco, 819 F.2d 630 (6th Cir. 1987). Ruled that an employer could be liable for harassment by a supervisor given that its sexual harassment policy was vague and ineffective.

Gilardi v. Schroeder, 833 F.2d 1226 (7th Cir. 1987). Ruled that the owner of a trucking company discriminated against a female office clerk on the basis of sex in violation of Title Vll when he drugged and raped her at his home and then fired her at the insistence of his wife. The court also upheld damage awards for the plaintiff's state law claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional stress Swentek v. USAir, Inc. 830 F.2d 552 (4th Cir. 1987). Ruled that the employer was not liable since the pilot was not the plaintiff's supervisor and, therefore the employer would only be liable if it had actual or constructive knowledge of the hostile working environment and did nothing to remedy the situation. Here the employer's actions in investigating and reprimanding the pilot were a sufficient response.

Generally, the courts have ruled in favor of the employers when they took prompt, appropriate remedial action once they learned about incidents of sexual harassment committed by supervisors or coworkers, and against the employers who failed to respond adequately to complain.

LEGAL BASES: HARASSMENT BASED ON RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, DISABILITY AND RELIGION
Office of Civil Rights, Department of Education (34 CFR Parts 100, 104, 1-6 and 110) Conforming Amendments to the Regulations Governing Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Race, Color, National Origin, Disability, Sex, Handicap, and Age Under the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VI protects people from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Title VI states: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for enforcing Title VI as it applies to programs funded by the United States Department of Education.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities and guarantees equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services, and telecommunications.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is civil rights legislation that protects the rights of persons with disabilities. Two requirements for school-age children include nondiscrimination and the provision of a free appropriate public education.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (PL 94-142)
Public Law 94-142 guarantees a free, appropriate public education to each child with a disability in every state and locally across the country. The four purposes of PL 94-142 are to improve access to education for children with disabilities, to assure that children with disabilities and their parents are protected, to assist state and localities to provide a free, appropriate public education and to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate all children with disabilities.

LEGAL BASES: HARASSMENT BASED ON RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, DISABILITY AND RELIGION

As per The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) The United States Supreme Court asserts that employers are liable for harassment by their supervisors. An employer is always liable when a supervisor's harassment culminates into a tangible employment action (hiring, firing, and demotion). When no tangible action is taken, the employer may avoid liablity by demonstrating that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassing behavior.

Kolstad v. American Dental Association (1999)
The Supreme Court issued a decision in this case explaining when punitive damages against employers may be assessed in discrimination cases. The Supreme Court explained that an employer's state of mind, whether or not the employer acted with malice or recklessness, would be an intergral part in deciding if it is liable. If employers can demonstrate that it made "good faith in compliance with Title VII," it will not be held liable to discriminatory employment decisions.

Cavouti v. New Jersey (1999)
The New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the issue of when workplace discrimination employees may recover punitive damage awards. The court held that an employer may be liable in the context of upper management's actual participation in, or willing indifference to, wrongful conduct. Cavouti was a victim of age discrimination who was passed over for five promotions. Cavouti filed a compaint with the EEOC. Cavouti alleged that he was called into his superintendent's office and advised not to file claims of age discrimination and warned that empoyees who do so could face "problems." Cavouti was ultimately discharged in 1996 after two unfavorable reviews. Cavouti won his case and received $222,323 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

LEGAL BASES: HARASSMENT BASED ON BULLYING AND INTIMIDATION
HB 2178
This proposed law ammends the Pennsylvania School Code to provide public policies for harassment, bullying and intimidation. Policies should include a definition of conduct, a statement of prohibiting bullying and intimidation and consequences for such actions.

	Sexual Harassment Part 3 APPENDIX D PENN-TRAFFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT, HARASSMENT BASED ON RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, DISABILITY AND RELIGION AND HARASSMENT BASED ON BULLYING AND INTIMIDATION APPROVED: JANUARY 11, 1982 REVISED PENN - TRAFFORD POLICY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT, HARASSMENT BASED ON RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, DISABILITY AND RELIGION, AND HARASSMENT BASED ON BULLYING AND INTIMIDATION I. Policy Intent: To help assure that employees and non-employees be permitted to work in an environment free from unsolicited and unwelcome sexual advances and unwanted harassment based on race, national origin, disability and religion,or harassment based on bullying and intimidation the Penn-Trafford School District expresses strong disapproval of sexual harassment, harassment based on race, national origin, disability and religion, and harassment based on bullying and intimidation will inform employees of their rights under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Acts, and will develop appropriate sanctions and complaint procedures II. Definition: -Sexual harassment is unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. -Harassment based on race, national origin, disability or religion is physical or verbal conduct relating to a person's race, national origin, disability or religion that creates an unwelcome learning or working environment. -Harassment based on bullying or intimidation consists of a pattern of abuse over time and involves a person being picked on, a power imbalance between victim and bully, an intent to harm, and repeated acts, which impact the victim negatively. Employee is an employer, employment agency, apprenticeship committee or labor organization. III. History: Harassment on the basis of sex, race, national origin, disability or religion is a violation of - 45 CFR, Parts 81, 86 - Section 703 of Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. - Education Amendments of 1972, Title IX - Section 5 (a) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act of October 27, 1955. - Section 504 of the Education Act of 1973 - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000-6) - Equal Employment Opportunity Act (EEOC) of 1972 - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act - Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 - The Pennsylvanla Human Relations Commission has adopted Guidelines for Sexual Harassment similar to these used by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). - HB 2178 IV. Rationale: Prevention is the best tool for the elimination of sexual harassment, harassment based on race, national origin, disability and religion and harassment based on bullying and intimidation. Necessary steps of Prevention: A. Employer should affirmatively raise subject B. Employer should express strong disapproval C. Employer should develop appropriate sanctions D. Employer should inform employees of their right to raise and the procedure to raise the issue of harassment E. Employer should develop methods to sensitize all concerned. POLICY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT, HARASSMENT BASED ON RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, DISABILITY AND RELIGION, AND HARASSMENT BASED ON BULLYING AND INTIMIDATION-CONTINUED V. Complaints: Sexual Harassment Complaints of sexual harassment will be decided by the Human Relations Commission with the following guidelines: A. Unwelcomed sexual advances and requests or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when: (1) submission to such is made, either explicity or implicity, a term or condition of employment; (2) submission to rejection of such conduct is used as a basis for future employment decisions affecting the individual; (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with one's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. B. The Commission will look at the record as a whole in determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment. C. The Commission will review the prevention policies for elimination of sexual harassment. Such policies include informing employees of their rights under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, development appropriate sanctions and expressing strong disapproval of sexual harassment. VI. Complaints: Other Harassment Complaints of harassment based on race, national origin, disability or religion and harassment based on bullying and intimidation will be decided by the administraton based on the proceudres addressed in the harassment policy based on race, national origin, disability and religion, bullying and intimidation. VlI. Responsibilities of Employer: A. An employer is responsible for its acts and those of its supervisory employees with respect to sexual harassment, harassment based on race, national origin, disabiliy and religion, and harassment based on bullying and intimidation regardless of whether the specific acts complained of were authorized or even forbidden by the employer and regardless of whether the employer had knowledge of their occurrence. B. The employer is responsible for the conduct between fellow employees unless it can prove it took immediate and appropriate corrective action. C. The employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees. The Commission will consider the extent of the employer's control and legal responsibility for these non-employees. D. The employer may be held liable for unlawful sex discrimination against other persons who were qualified but denied employment opportunities because another individuals submission to an employer's sexual advances resulted in gained employment opportunities or benefits. LEGAL BASES: SEXUAL HARASSMENT CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS Areas of the constitution where claims have been advanced include: fundamental due process rights, first amendment rights, or liberty rights. As public employers, school districts and school officials may be vulnerable that sexual harassment violates protected constitutional rights of teachers and students. U.S.C. Section 1983 provides that: "every person who, under color of (law) subjects or causes to be subjected any . . . person within the jurisdiction [of the United States] to the deprecation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law or suit in equity." In Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District 882 F.2d 720 (3rd Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1044 (1990), a federal district court held that a school district can be held liable to a student for the actions of an employee in a sexual harassment context. However, in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services 489 U.S. 189 (1989), the court ruled that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment provides no constitutional right to be protected by the state from invasion by private parties. The school officials could be held liable under only two theories. First, the school officials were recklessly indifferent in allegedly failing to make clear to the band director that criminal assaults are impermissible and second, the school district failed to train its employees to deal with allegations of child abuse. It should be suggested in a sexual harassment case where a student alleges a constitutional violation under Section 1983, the school district should contend that state tort remedies can adequately redress the student's claims. Federal Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 Sexual harassment in educational institutions is not simply inappropriate behavior, it is against the law. Title IX, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq. provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation In, be denied the benefit of, or be subject to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance . . ." Title IX clearly protects students, faculty and staff in education institutions. The courts have interpreted Title IX by borrowing many of the principles developed under Title VII. In the case of Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (February 26, 1992) the Supreme Court held that Title IX places a duty on schools not to discriminate on the basis of sex and further held that the sexual harassment and abuse of a student constitutes sex discrimination. The court then went a step further and found that students subject to such discrimination are entitled not only to injunctive relief, but are also entitled to monetary damages for any harm suffered . LEGAL BASES: SEXUAL HARASSMENT - CONTINUED Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. does not specifically prohibit sexual harassment, but in 1976, there was a judicial recognition that Title Vll prohibits sexual harassment. In 1980, federal regulations were issued which codified the judicial decisions prohibiting sexual harassment as follows: "Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of section 703 of Title Vll. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when 1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, 2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or 3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. EEOC, 29 CFR 1604.1 1 . The key court decision on this interpretation came in 1986 in Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson. 477 U.S. 57 (1986). From the Meritor case two kinds of sexual harassment were identified. Quid pro quo case involving loss of economic benefits, and the hostile environment case. The Surpreme declined to rule in the Meritor case on that of employer liability. The Surpreme Court deferred to agency principles in the various states. This sent liability decisions into the district courts to rule on the merit of each case. Examples of cases since the Meritor decision are summarized below. Procedure recommended by Steele & Hoffman Paroline v. Unisys Corp., 879 F. 2nd 100 (4th Cir. 1989). The court adopted a dual standard to determine whether the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive; the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the harassment interfered with her ability to perform her work or significantly affected her psychological well-being; and second, that the harassment would interfere with the work performance or significantly affect the psychological well-being of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position. Yates v. Avco, 819 F.2d 630 (6th Cir. 1987). Ruled that an employer could be liable for harassment by a supervisor given that its sexual harassment policy was vague and ineffective. Gilardi v. Schroeder, 833 F.2d 1226 (7th Cir. 1987). Ruled that the owner of a trucking company discriminated against a female office clerk on the basis of sex in violation of Title Vll when he drugged and raped her at his home and then fired her at the insistence of his wife. The court also upheld damage awards for the plaintiff's state law claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional stress Swentek v. USAir, Inc. 830 F.2d 552 (4th Cir. 1987). Ruled that the employer was not liable since the pilot was not the plaintiff's supervisor and, therefore the employer would only be liable if it had actual or constructive knowledge of the hostile working environment and did nothing to remedy the situation. Here the employer's actions in investigating and reprimanding the pilot were a sufficient response. Generally, the courts have ruled in favor of the employers when they took prompt, appropriate remedial action once they learned about incidents of sexual harassment committed by supervisors or coworkers, and against the employers who failed to respond adequately to complain. LEGAL BASES: HARASSMENT BASED ON RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, DISABILITY AND RELIGION* Office of Civil Rights, Department of Education (34 CFR Parts 100, 104, 1-6 and 110) Conforming Amendments to the Regulations Governing Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Race, Color, National Origin, Disability, Sex, Handicap, and Age Under the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. *Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964* Title VI protects people from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Title VI states: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for enforcing Title VI as it applies to programs funded by the United States Department of Education. *Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990* The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities and guarantees equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services, and telecommunications. *Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act* Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is civil rights legislation that protects the rights of persons with disabilities. Two requirements for school-age children include nondiscrimination and the provision of a free appropriate public education. *Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (PL 94-142)* Public Law 94-142 guarantees a free, appropriate public education to each child with a disability in every state and locally across the country. The four purposes of PL 94-142 are to improve access to education for children with disabilities, to assure that children with disabilities and their parents are protected, to assist state and localities to provide a free, appropriate public education and to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate all children with disabilities. *LEGAL BASES: HARASSMENT BASED ON RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, DISABILITY AND RELIGION* As per The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) The United States Supreme Court asserts that employers are liable for harassment by their supervisors. An employer is always liable when a supervisor's harassment culminates into a tangible employment action (hiring, firing, and demotion). When no tangible action is taken, the employer may avoid liablity by demonstrating that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassing behavior. Kolstad v. American Dental Association (1999) The Supreme Court issued a decision in this case explaining when punitive damages against employers may be assessed in discrimination cases. The Supreme Court explained that an employer's state of mind, whether or not the employer acted with malice or recklessness, would be an intergral part in deciding if it is liable. If employers can demonstrate that it made "good faith in compliance with Title VII," it will not be held liable to discriminatory employment decisions. Cavouti v. New Jersey (1999) The New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the issue of when workplace discrimination employees may recover punitive damage awards. The court held that an employer may be liable in the context of upper management's actual participation in, or willing indifference to, wrongful conduct. Cavouti was a victim of age discrimination who was passed over for five promotions. Cavouti filed a compaint with the EEOC. Cavouti alleged that he was called into his superintendent's office and advised not to file claims of age discrimination and warned that empoyees who do so could face "problems." Cavouti was ultimately discharged in 1996 after two unfavorable reviews. Cavouti won his case and received $222,323 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. LEGAL BASES: HARASSMENT BASED ON BULLYING AND INTIMIDATION HB 2178 This proposed law ammends the Pennsylvania School Code to provide public policies for harassment, bullying and intimidation. Policies should include a definition of conduct, a statement of prohibiting bullying and intimidation and consequences for such actions.