Compliance Stuff

On October 31, 2025, a federal district court ruled that the University of Pennsylvania could not be held liable for harassing behavior by a student toward a research associate. The case sheds light on an evolving standard for employer liability for harassment by non-employees. Quick Hits In  O’Neill v. University of Pennsylvania , the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concluded the university was not liable for the harassment because it did not intend for the harassment to happen. The court found the research associate satisfied some of the criteria for a hostile work environment and sexual harassment claim, but failed to prove the university was liable. The court relied on a  recent ruling  in the Sixth Circuit, which held that an employer is not liable for a third party’s harassment of an employee unless it intended to cause or allow the harassment. Background In 2022, the female plaintiff began working as a research associate at the Universi...

Introduction Consider the following scenarios: A customer repeatedly enters your company’s workplace, berates your employees, uses profanity, and then leaves. (Let’s call her “Cruella.”) Or perhaps a customer consistently comes in and asks your employees out on dates, tells them about his sexual prowess, won’t take no for an answer, and refuses to leave the premises when asked. (Let’s call him “Ken.”) This conduct hasn’t  y et  involved stalking, assault, battery, violence or threats of violence, but it is still alarming, annoying, and harassing to your employees, causing them distress and impeding their work. Even though California requires employers to take proactive steps to protect employees from harassing behavior, prior to Jan. 1, 2025, you may have been out of luck; unless and until the behavior escalated to stalking, assault, threats of violence or actual violence, you might lack a sufficient legal basis to restrain Cruella and Ken from entering your workplace. Fortu...