Search form

Workplace Bullying: Effective Policies for the Workplace

By John A. Snyder and Tracie Johnson Maurer
  • December 20, 2012

Bullying is not exclusive to the schoolyard. Bullying in the workplace is a real problem and, if allowed, can destroy a company’s culture and employee morale. 

Workplace bullying can be defined as mistreatment severe enough to compromise a targeted worker’s health, jeopardize his or her job and career, and strain relationships with friends and family, among other things. Some common verbal characteristics of bullying may include: flaunting status, shouting, swearing or using foul language, spreading harmful gossip, blaming an employee inappropriately, threatening job loss, leveling unwarranted criticism, “chilling opinions,” and putting employees down in front of others. Common non-verbal, bullying behaviors can include: ignoring contributions, consistently failing to follow-up, excluding employees from meetings and social gatherings, giving an employee the silent treatment, playing mean pranks, treating employees rudely, and making unreasonable work demands.

Recent statistics suggest that workplace bullying is widespread and even more prevalent when unreported conduct is considered. According to a 2010 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey: 

  • 35% of American workers report being bullied now or at some time in their careers; 
  • 15% of American workers reported observing bullying; 
  • 40% of targets never tell their employers; 
  • 62% of bullies are men; 
  • 58% of targets are women; 
  • 68% of bullying cases involve the same gender bully and target (indeed, women account for 80% of bullying against other women); and 
  • 43% of bullying comes from co-workers (36% supervisors, 12% customers, 5% subordinates and 4% others make up the rest).

The direct costs associated with workplace bullying include medical and workers’ compensation claims. In addition, there are numerous negative effects from employers ignoring bullying. Included are decreased productivity and efficiency, high turnover, excessive absenteeism, financial problems caused by absences, poor customer/client relations, low morale, increases in resignations/transfer requests, hotline calls and complaints, work schedule changes, reduced self-esteem, and family tension. See, e.g., “Workplace Bullying and Disruptive Behavior: What Everyone Needs to Know,” Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, Report #87-2-2011, April 2011. 

Around the world, lawmakers have taken notice of the problem. France, Germany, the U.K., Canada, Sweden, and part of Australia, among other places, have enacted laws directed specifically at workplace bullying. To date, there is no such federal or state anti-bullying legislation in the United States. 

In the absence of a specific law, plaintiffs have sued their employers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or under the theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress or another tort. Title VII prohibits discrimination or harassment only on the basis of protected categories, such as race, color, disability, age, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Federal courts have invoked Title VII as grounds for liability against employers in what amounts to bullying cases under theories of gender stereotyping, hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation. However, bullying often can be “status blind” and, therefore, the victim also must fall into a protected category for relief under a law such as Title VII. Alternatively, the bullying behavior must be so severe or pervasive to fall under the state law definitions of intentional infliction of emotional distress or some other tort.

Despite the absence of anti-bullying legislation, employers should consider implementing and distributing policies, and training employees and managers, with respect to effective and comprehensive anti-bullying measures. Policies should describe appropriate business conduct, define abusive conduct and articulate that it will not be tolerated. They should provide a reasonable reporting procedure, require employees to report problems promptly, promise prompt and thorough investigation of complaints, prohibit retaliation, and warn that policy violations may lead to discipline, including termination, if warranted.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer questions about this and other workplace developments. Please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work. 

©2012 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

November 17, 2015

School District Faces Government Sanctions under Title IX for Denying Transgender Female Student Access to Locker Rooms

November 17, 2015

An Illinois school district has violated anti-discrimination laws by not allowing a transgender student who identifies as female and is on her high school’s girls’ sports team to change and shower in the girls’ locker room, the United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) has held... Read More

November 6, 2015

‘Fight for $15’ Walk-Outs and Protests Continue; Are You Prepared for November 10?

November 6, 2015

Continuing its three-year campaign, “Fight for $15” on November 4, 2015, announced plans for worker strikes and protests at fast food restaurants in 270 U.S. cities on November 10. The protests, timed to occur one year prior to the 2016 presidential election, is calculated to send a message to voters and candidates. Protests... Read More

October 14, 2015

South Carolina Jury Awards Employee $868,000 for Breach of an Oral Promise

October 14, 2015

A jury has returned an $868,000 verdict for an employee’s wrongful termination in an unusual case illustrating what “not to do” when discharging an employee. The verdict is believed to be one of the largest ever in South Carolina involving breach of an oral promise. Parker v. The National Honorary Beta Club, No. 2014-CP... Read More

Related Practices