Bully For Bully Legislation
To The Editor:
Thank you for your opinion piece on the new legislation, SB 60, An Act Concerning Bullying in the Workplace. I would like to comment on a couple of statements in the editorial. Saying that “malice” and “reasonable person” are subjective is incorrect from a legal standpoint.
All tort law is based on the “reasonable person” standard and “malice” is a form of intent. It actually raises the bar considerably in terms of what plaintiff’s need to prove, because it prevents a lawsuit from going forward because a boss has a rotten personality or is inept at social skills. Proving malice means the plaintiff has to show that the defendant, the bully, targeted the person in a hateful way. Moreover, when coupled with the requirement that the bullying be health harming, it creates a high standard of proof.
This is good legislation, because as your op-ed writer points out, bullying hurts businesses. Too often employers do not know how to stop bullies or are worried that they cannot fire the bully. This legislation gives them the incentive, indeed the mandate, to do the right thing and prevent or stop bullying. The bill is not anti-business.
Katherine A. Hermes, J.D., Ph.D.
Katherine Hermes is a volunteer state coordinator with the nonprofit Workplace Bullying Institute and a history professor with a J.D. (Duke,’92) and a Ph.D. (Yale, ’95) at Central Connecticut State University.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments