The Invisible Burden - Mere Presence of Pornography Enough To Warrant Harassment Claim...

As a HR Pro, you probably get queasy even seeing the annual SI Swimsuit Issue in the workplace.  Good instincts.  The Supreme Court definition of pornography is "I know it when I see it", and a recent court decision indicates the threshold may even be lower - as in an employee may not even have to see it to be harassed.

Confused?  Daniel Schwartz of the CT Employment Law Blog breaks it down for you:

"This time, in Patane v. Clark, released today, the Second Circuit reversed a decision granting a motion to dismiss a claim of sexual harassment claim.  The takeaway from the case today is that the mere presence of pornography in the workplace -- even if never viewed directly by the plaintiff-employee -- may be sufficient to state a claim of sexual harassment.

...This Court has specifically recognized that the mere presence of pornography in a workplace can alter the “status” of women therein and is relevant to assessing the objective hostility of the environment...."

If that's not a call to remove all questionable materials from the workplace, I don't know what is.  I took a spin through the lobby and removed a newspaper and a Chadwick's catalog, just to be safe.  You should do the same... You think I'm kidding, but I'm not.  It's lock-down mode from here on out...

May the Schwartz be with you....