Addressing Back- ground Screening Policies in Light of Recent EEOC Guidance


By: Rob Pickell, Sr VP, Customer Solutions, HireRight


THE BULLY AT WORK


The DARVO Dilemma ©2012 Gail Pursell Elliott


DARVO (Deny, Accuse, Reverse Victim and Offender) is a term developed by a clinical psychologist working with child abuse at the Univer- sity of Oregon. In my work,


I’ve discerned this process occurring in other situations including workplace mobbing and bullying. Indeed, it is something for both Human Resources and Risk Man- agement professionals to consider when investigating workplace issues.DARVO can appear as a result of factionalism during which opposing groups accuse each other of misconduct. It also can be used as a defense by a bully when confronted by someone who speaks up, sometimes inappropriately or as an outburst. This person may be the target or an observer who is frustrated by what they see. The intent is to redirect the attention from the bully to someone else and to play the victim while setting others against the target. The resulting confusion supports the mobbing process and further victimizes the target. Mobbing is engineered to make the target appear to be responsible for what is happening and attempts to legitimize the emotional abuse.


Analyzing a situation regardless of whether DARVO is in play takes time. The history both of the work area and staff should be examined. Being cognizant of day to day behavior on the part of all players is not always possible, but taking time to monitor interactions beyond document- ed issues is important. There can be a tendency to try to make one person completely wrong and one or more others completely right. Following is a Case Overview of a retail workplace in which mobbing including DARVO is currently occurring.


To read more about the case click here


Sixth Circuit Confirms that Workplace Harassment Based on Sexual Orientation is Not Unlawful Even When Conduct Amounts to Bullying


The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a male employee could not prevail on a sexual harassment claim against his employer based on his allegation that his male supervisor repeatedly subjected him to inappropriate comments in the work- place because he knew or suspected the employee was homosexual. The Court found, to establish a claim for unlawful hostile work environment sexual harassment, the employee must prove that “but for the fact of his sex, he would not have been the object of harassment.” In addition, to prove “same sex harassment”, the plaintiff must show that the alleged harasser: made sexual advances; was motivated by a general hostility towards men in the workplace; or treated women more favorably. In this case, the Court found the supervisor’s conduct to be “crude, bullying and despicable,” but not unlawful. Further, harassment or discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation or perceived sexual orienta- tion is not currently actionable under either Michigan or federal law, however legislation is currently pending. Therefore, any comments made about someone’s sexual orientation cannot serve as the basis for a sexual harassment claim.


To read more, click here


The Workplace Violence Fact Sheet


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18