Bullying: Off the Playground and Into the Office
Bullying: Off the Playground and Into the Educational Workplace
C. W. Von Bergen
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
Bullying: Off the Playground and Into the Educational Workplace
Abstract
Workplace bullying is a social phenomenon that unfortunately has become very common in today’s workplace. This paper defines workplace bullying and considers the factors and situations that contribute to its occurrence, its negative effects, as well as organizational strategies by educational institutions for reducing and eliminating this increasing workplace pollutant in educational offices.
Bullying: Off the Playground and Into the Educational Workplace
“The workplace bully in America’s schools is a taker… a robber…
a thief. The bully steals the dignity, self-esteem, confidence, joy,
happiness, and quality of life of the targeted victim. But when the
target is a teacher, a great injustice occurs because the bully robs
the students of what they want, need, and deserve …. A great tragedy
occurs everyday in America’s schools as thousands of children are
robbed by the workplace bully of the RIGHT to be nurtured and
taught by … honorable, caring, outstanding educators.”
--Veteran school administrator and HR professional Matt Spencer (2010)
The Department of Education hosted its first conference on bullying on August 11 and 12, 2010, and in his keynote speech Education Secretary Arne Duncan said bullying is a school safety issue that must be resolved (, 2010). “Bullying is doubly dangerous because it can have unintended consequences and be escalated to even more serious violence and abuse. Just as you have gateway drugs, bullying, I think, is a gateway to hate” (Politics Daily, 2010).
Secretary Duncan was talking of student-on-student bullying and while we applaud his efforts, we feel that bullying in the education workplace, adult-on-adult, if you will, must likewise be addressed. Indeed, tackling such bullying should be part of any comprehensive plan to reduce student bullying because “Kids are very vulnerable to what adults say. Adult modeling is a very powerful force in shaping youth behavior,” said Stan Davis, a school guidance counselor in Sidney, Maine, and a bullying prevention expert (Matheny, 2010). Similar sentiments were expressed by Dr. Gary Namie—co-founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute (n. d.) in Bellingham, Washington—who indicated that “Promoting an anti-bullying message among students is ‘undermined when a principal bullies a teacher in front of the kids’” (Matheny, 2010). Likewise, Spencer (2010) indicated that “… workplace bullies in America’s schools must be stopped from continually robbing our students of the high-quality of education they deserve.” Workplace bullying in the educational office may thus contribute to student bullying. Consequently, this paper addresses adult-on-adult bullying in public education. First we define workplace bullying with particular emphasis on the educational context, then we consider the factors and situations that contribute to its occurrence followed by a discussion of its negative effects, and end with a listing of organizational strategies for addressing this increasingly common workplace venom.
Introduction
Bullying is largely perceived as an issue for children and most schools have policies that target student-on-student bullying but playground bullies grow up, get jobs, and often repeat the same behavior in the workplace. They leave behind the broken toys and bloodied noses of the sandlot in exchange for the broken pencils and bruised egos of the educational office. Recently, school districts in Iowa and Florida have developed rules to prevent adult-on-adult bullying. The Sioux City, Iowa, community school district approved its policy in April, 2010 while the School Board of Broward County Florida approved their anti-bullying policy for children and adults in April, 2010 which will serve as a model for the state’s other 66 school districts. Copies of these policy statements are provided in Appendix A along with a policy statement from an English primary school to provide an international perspective.
Additionally, the Desert Sands Unified School District of La Quinta, California faculty and staff anti-bullying policy is awaiting final passage. Don’t know what is going on here. I emailed personal chief but I’m not sure my email went through. Have received nothing.
Workplace bullying
Americans have come to realize that schools and workplaces are not the safe places they were assumed to be. Journalistic analyses of these incidents have found evidence that employees had been marginalized, harassed, or bullied by administrators, teachers, custodians, or anyone in the institution in the hallways, offices, and workrooms of schools.
Bullying is not about a “clash of personalities,” a “misunderstanding,” or “miscommunication” (Namie & Namie, 2000, p. 73). Nor should it be confused with “joking” or “horseplay” or “teasing.” Bullies routinely practice psychological violence against specific individuals whom they intentionally try to harm, often devastating the target’s emotional stability. Interestingly, workplace bullies tend to target employees who are among the organization’s most competent (Bullying Basics, n. d.; MacDonald, 2001; Milford, 2003). The majority of bullies are opportunistic, intelligently monitoring their environments, noting who gets promoted and who gets drummed out of our competition-worshipping workplaces. Women comprise 58% of all bullies (Namie, 2003). When the targeted individual is a female she is bullied by women in 63% of cases; when the target is a male he is bullied by men 62% of the time. Thus most bullying is same sex harassment, with women being the workplace target of choice (Namie, 2003).
Scholars have used a number of terms in the conceptual, theoretical, and empirical literature to describe the workplace ill-treatment phenomenon, including incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), mobbing (Davenport, Distler-Schwartz, & Elliott, 1999; Leymann, 1990), harassment (Björkvist, Österman, & Hjelt-Bäck, 1994); petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1994), abusive disrespect (Hornstein, 1996), interactional injustice (Harlos & Pinder, 2000), emotional abuse (Keashly, 1998), mistreatment (Blase & Blase, 2004; Folger, 1993), abuse (Bassman, 1992), aggression (Neuman & Baron, 1998), deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), victimization (Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health, 1993), and bullying (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Namie & Namie, 2000). According to Einarsen and Mikkelsen (2003) these terms “all seem to refer to the same phenomenon, namely the systematic mistreatment of a subordinate, a colleague, or a superior, which, if continued, may cause severe social, psychological, and psychosomatic problems in the victim” (p. 103).
Researchers generally accept that bullying contains three essential elements: 1) the behavior is aggressive and negative; 2) the behavior is carried out repeatedly; and 3) the behavior occurs in a relationship where there is an imbalance of power between the parties involved. Bullying does not refer to legitimate, properly conducted criticism of an individual’s work performance by their administrator or supervisor. Nor does it refer to the sort of everyday disagreements that go on in any workplace. Bullying is not about arguments between individuals. It is about having the right to a working environment free from intimidation and abuse.
In this paper we use the term bullying, and specifically refer to workplace bullying involving adult-to-adult interactions. We focus on principal bullying since numerous studies indicate that bosses (e.g., principals, superiors, managers) are more frequently workplace abusers rather than an individual’s coworkers. In various studies, bosses have been identified as engaging in abusive conduct toward subordinates between 54% of the time and 90% of the time (Björkvist et al., 1994; Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Hornstein, 1996; Keashly, Trott, & MacLean 1994; Namie, 2000; Namie & Namie, 2000; Northwestern National Life Insurance Company, 1993; Pearson, 2000; Rayner, 1998). Other studies suggest that over 80% of workplace bullying is imposed by a supervisor on a subordinate (Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Namie, 2003; Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996). Interestingly, a number of investigators have persuasively argued that they expect abusive conduct by superiors to increase given organizational changes such as the growth in diversity, a decline in unionization (Yamada, 2000), and increases in electronic monitoring (Hornstein, 1996).
Power disparity between perpetrator and target is “central to the definition of
bullying” (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003, p. 21).The fact that bullies tend to be power holders is particularly important because the exercise of power often produces significant psychological change in people (Bedeian, 2002) such that they unknowingly “become puffed up with their own importance” (Kipnis, 1984, p. 30) and simultaneously view others with disdain and condescension. Kipnis (1976) has called these changes the “metamorphic effects of power” and has indicated that these effects are unspoken evidence of Lord Acton’s famous warning that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (1949, p. 364). In higher education, Bedeian (2002) refers to this as the “Dean’s disease” (p. 164). Additionally, power holders come to believe that they are exempt from established norms and mores and that they possess a special divinity with its own code of ethics which surrounds their often self-serving and self-interested actions (Sorokin & Lunden, 1959).
This belief leads them to ignore the ethical consequences of their decisions and, importantly, relieves them of the responsibility for justifying their decisions according to rational procedures. Furthermore, it helps them avoid feelings of shame or guilt which, in turn, protect their self-esteem (Janis, 1971) and lead them to believe in their own infallibility. As a way of rationalizing their actions, power holders devalue the worth of others and act to distance themselves from those judged less worthy. Employees are viewed as objects of manipulation with a secondary claim on rights and privileges (Bedeian, 2002).
Bullying actions by principles
From an a comprehensive interview-based study of 50 teachers located throughout the United States who had been mistreated by school principals over long periods of time (six months to nine years), Blase and Blase (2003) found that abusive principals, like abusive bosses in general, engage in similar behaviors. At the least severe level principal mistreatment behaviors include discounting teachers’ thoughts, needs, and feelings and isolating and abandoning them;
withholding or denying opportunities, resources, or credit; showing favoritism toward other teachers; and offensive personal conduct. Moderate levels of principal mistreatment behaviors comprise spying, sabotaging, stealing, destroying teacher instructional aids, making unreasonable work demands, and both public and private criticism of teachers. At its most severe level principal mistreatment behaviors involve lying, being explosive and nasty, threats, unwarranted reprimands, unfair evaluations, forcing teachers out of their jobs, preventing teachers from leaving/advancing, sexual harassment, and racism. Such behaviors and related patterns of conduct are consistent with studies of abusive bosses conducted throughout the world in both profit and nonprofit organizations (Björkvist et al., 1994; Davenport et al., 1999; Einarsen et al., 2003; Harlos & Pinder, 2000; Hornstein, 1996; Keashly et al., 1994; Leymann, 1990; Lombardo & McCall, 1984; Namie, 2000; Namie & Namie, 2000; Neuman & Baron, 1998; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper, 2002; Ryan & Oestreich, 1991).
To obtain a first-hand look at some specific examples of bully boss behavior, the reader is referred to the web-site Working America (n. d.) at . One instance specific to the educational workplace posted to this web site involves a teacher who indicated her principal would not let her get her broken arm treated until the end of the day!
Consider also the case of a Brooklyn principal who is under investigation for intimidating teachers over school surveys (Monahan, 2010).
National Association for Prevention of Teacher Abuse at
White Chalk Crime: The REAL Reason Schools Fail by Karen Horwitz (2008), President, NAPTA (National Association for Prevention of Teacher Abuse). BookSurge Publishing. Charleston, SC. This book is a teacher’s attempt to initiate school reform by presenting testimony of 140+ award winning educators who enlighten the public about teacher abuse. White Chalk Crime™ describes how administrators and school boards obstruct educators from following the laws that protect children from harm and that guarantee them a proper education. Because administrators do this while making decisions geared toward their own self-serving interests, not the public’s, our schools are spiraling further and further into an abyss and are unable to compete globally. This book crystallizes the story of teacher abuse, the calculated use of psychological terror by educational leaders to squelch resistance from teachers, principled educators, or involved parents. Get copy of this book
Prevalence of workplace bullying
In recent years, there has been a growing recognition that bullying at work is much more common place than previously thought (Keashly & Jagatic, 2002). Although estimates vary, workplace bullying is thought to be more common than racial discrimination or sexual harassment (O’Reilly, 2000; Rayner, 1997). According to the Campaign against Workplace Bullying, ‘‘one in five employees [in the US] is bullied with repeated, deliberately
harmful verbal abuse’’ (Namie, 2000). The Northwest National Life Insurance survey (1993) is frequently cited as an illustration of the pervasiveness of aggression in American workplaces. Based on a sample of 600 full-time workers, the researchers concluded that one in four workers reported being harassed, threatened or physically attacked on the job in the previous 12 months. Hornstein (1996) indicated that 90 percent of the American workforce suffers boss abuse at some time in their careers. Another study by Namie and Namie (1999) reported that a full 66 percent of all respondents experienced or witnessed workplace bullying while Greenberg and Barling (1999) found that over 75% of male workers sampled reported engaging in some form of psychologically aggressive behaviors against their fellow employees. Similar rates were found in Glomb’s (2002) study of specific angry incidents in which participants reported on their own behavior.
In another study Keashly and Jagatic (2000) randomly sampled Michigan residents and reported that about 59% of the representative working sample indicated they had experienced at least one type of emotionally abusive behavior at the hands of fellow workers. Almost 20% of the sample reported they had been exposed to five or more different emotionally abusive behaviors. Regarding a more general experience of “mistreatment,” 27% reported being mistreated by a fellow worker in the previous 12 months (62% were notably bothered by the treatment) and 42% (64% notably bothered) reported being mistreated at some point in their working career.
Moreover, a survey conducted by the Chartered Management Institute reported that a third of managers in the engineering sector were victims of workplace bullying (One Manager in Three, 2005). These are probably conservative estimates based on research by Salin (2001) who found that that despite being subjected to frequent bullying behavior, most targets of bullying were disinclined to label themselves as bullied. More recently research in the United States has indicated that nearly 37% of the American workforce, approximately 54 million Americans,
have succumbed to some form of workplace bullying (Brozak, 2010). Other reports have indicated that the percentage of individuals in the United States who have experienced some form of bullying at one point or another in their work lives actually falls between 38% and 90% (Glendinning, 2001; Vega & Comer, 2005). The reason for such a
wide variance may stem from the lack of a commonly agreed upon operational definition of workplace bullying (Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006).
Finally, the American Workplace Survey conducted by Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, and Alberts (2007), found that 30-35% of U.S. workers experienced a negative act at least once a week over a 6-12 month period. The distinction between workplace negativity and workplace bullying offered by Lutgen-Sandvik et al. (2007) is that workers “did not always equate . . . negativity with the concept of bullying” (p. 854). For instance, of those participants in their study who reported being bullied at work, only one-third of the members of the group identified themselves as targets of bullying (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007).
Consequences
The effects of such mistreatment are extremely harmful to teachers’ professional and personal lives; like many thousands of workers represented in the extant literature—a number that has been extrapolated to be multimillions of workers—abused teachers experienced the same devastating effects. Beyond the teachers’ responses of shock and disorientation, humiliation,
loneliness, and injured self-esteem, principal mistreatment seriously damaged in-school relationships, damaged classrooms, and frequently impaired all-school decision-making. In addition, principals’ abuse of teachers resulted in severe psychological/emotional problems, including chronic fear, anxiety, anger, and depression; a range of physical/psysiological problems; and adverse personal outcomes also discussed in the general empirical literature on boss abuse (Björkvist et al., 1994; Davenport et al., 1999; Harlos & Pinder, 2000; Hornstein, 1996; Keashly et al., 1994; Leymann, 1990; Lombardo & McCall, 1984; Namie, 2000; Namie & Namie, 2000; Northwestern National Life Insurance Company, 1993; Pearson, 2000; Ryan & Oestreich, 1991).
Negative effects of abusive behavior on work performance include reductions in job motivation, extra effort, levels of productivity, commitment, and satisfaction and morale plus increases in absenteeism and sick leave, turnover, relationship conflicts and hostility, loss of qualified personnel, and loss of creativity and innovation (Blase & Blase, 2003).
Employers generally do not account for the cost of bullying and its consequences, therefore the figures never appear on balance sheets. While figures are hard to come by, there are some estimates. Field (2002), for example, calculated that, for a fictitious company of 100 employees, the cost of unmanaged workplace bullying could be more than $600,000. The costs related to such issues as sick leave, absenteeism, compensation, turnover, loss of productivity and organizational property costs, surveys, training, coaching, and recruitment (Institute of Charted Accountants in Australia, 2003). Additionally, a survey of 5,300 employees in the U.K. indicated that bullying leads to 18 million lost working days a year, with victims of workplace bullying taking an average seven extra days off each year than those not bullied. Also, those who reported being bullied within the last six months consistently reported the poorest health, the lowest work motivation and satisfaction, the highest absenteeism figures as well as the lowest productivity, compared to those who were not bullied. What’s more, those who witnessed bullying at work were also more likely to report poor health and low morale than those who worked in bully-free environments (Burd, 2005). The International Labor Organization (2001) in the U.K. indicated that a very substantial proportion of workplace stress in general, and violence in particular, may be accounted for by negative behavior and abuse of a less physical nature such as bullying. Furthermore, Farrell (2002) reported a survey of 9,000 U.S. federal employees indicating that 42 percent of female and 15 percent of male employees reported being bullied within a two-year period, resulting in a cost of more than $180 million in lost time and productivity when projected to the total federal workforce.
Costly lawsuits can also drain district resources. Rohrs and Brooks (2006), for example, reported that a Vallejo (CA) high school teacher agreed to an out-of-court settlement with the Vallejo City Unified School District that cost the school district $545, 588 because of the egregious behavior of one bully principal and three supportive district personnel. These costs included:
$119,957 2 004 arbitration won by the former teacher
$225,000 2005 settlement won by the former teacher
$60,475 (est.) 10 years district contribution to former teacher’s retirement
$35,200 (est.) 10 years health and welfare benefits for former teacher’s retirement
$104,956 district legal expenses
$545,588 Total Expenses
As indicated above, legal fees can be substantial. Even though there is no common law or statutory cause of action dealing with workplace bullying, victims of workplace bullying have filed cause of action for harassment, discrimination, or some violation of civil rights and have been, relatively speaking, quite successful (Martin, Lopez, & Lavan, 2009). For example, Clermont and Schwab (2009) found that the success rate for the use of the Americans with Disabilities Act was almost 1 out of 10 (9.12%), with slightly more than 1 out of 10 (10.88%) for civil rights violations under Title VII, slightly more than 1 out of 10 (11.67%) for the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and nearly 2 out of 10 (19.55%) for the Family Medical Leave Act. In the Martin, Lopez, and Lavan (2209) study, the overall success rate was
found to be 15.6% for bullying cases (82 out of 524) and 22% when bullying litigation was conducted in state courts.
Attorneys should be sensitive to the fact that juries are considering workplace bullying along with other workplace-related claims, for instance, discrimination. This not only has a judicial impact but a public policy impact as state legislatures consider passing statutes addressing workplace bullying. If any of these legislative bills become law, then the law is within the purview of the judiciary and future legal bills will increase significantly. In conclusion, even in the absence of a federal or state statute banning workplace bullying in the United States, plaintiffs have prevailed by making workplace bullying part of an existing statutory, constitutional, or tort law claim. Even if a school district wins in court it loses in terms of financial costs.
Addressing Bullying
Bullying is not a problem for human resources and the lawyers to solve. They are simply responsible for cleaning up messes and paying legal awards after the fact. Administrators are responsible for preventing bullying behavior. School districts and school officials need to take appropriate action to protect their employees and their organizations from potentially devastating consequences from legal action and large monetary awards. They must be vigilant to ensure that everyone in their institution is informed, educated, and committed to preventing bullying. Without a coordinated plan of education and enforcement based on zero tolerance of bullying, unacceptable incidents of supervisory behavior can multiply to create a hostile and litigious environment.
Given that bullying occurs and has numerous problematic consequences, what can teachers and schools do to prevent or curtail it? There are both personal options that individuals can select and policy decisions that school districts can adopt to break the hold of bullies. The range of strategies for dealing with bullies range from the cautious to the courageous, from the personal to organizational options.
Combating and preventing workplace bullying: Personal options
Personal options
Personal options require restraint and patience (i.e., keeping one’s cool) as an individual navigates the choppy seas he or she will inevitably encounter as they initiate efforts to confront or capsize a bully. Such tactics are not for the faint of heart as suggested by Lipman-Blumen (2005a). As suggested earlier, most bullies are supervisors and so many of these suggestions involve a work leader bully such as a department chair, dean, principal, or superintendent.
Do your homework. Doing one’s homework can mean several things. For one, investigate the bully’s history. Did that person leave a toxic trail in previous leadership positions, like former Scott Paper CEO Albert Dunlap, also known as “Chainsaw Al,” “Rambo in Pinstripes,” or “The Shredder,” did when he reenacted his bully behavior at Sunbeam (Sunbeam and “Chainsaw Al”, n. d.)? Dunlap received his well-deserved reputation as one of the country’s meanest executives because he ruthlessly eliminated thousands of jobs in a variety of organizations. The concept of teamwork and group dynamics seemed foreign to Dunlap. He operated as if people were simply dispensable and proclaimed himself as the king of Mean Business (Dunlap & Andelman, 1996).
In addition to doing one’s homework, individuals should make a hard copy of their findings and share it with colleagues who may still be holding unrealistic hopes that the bully will change his or her stripes. It is important to keep a log documenting the leader’s behavior in the organization. This will be invaluable when the worker is challenged to cite chapter and verse of the toxic leader’s poor decisions and destructive actions. Furthermore, consult with trusted colleagues who interact with the same bully. Seek the advice of the opinion leaders and those individuals everyone recognizes as “wise organizational owls” (Lipman-Blumen, 2005b, p. 6). In many cases others likewise see the bully’s toxic behavior patterns.
Create a coalition or alliance. If an individual is suffering, most likely others are experiencing similar problems. Strategize about how the group will confront the leader and try to structure the confrontation as constructively as possible. If appropriate, frame coalition concerns in terms of school impact, that is, how the leader’s decisions and actions have negatively affected the school organization and the people (including the students) in it.
As a practical matter, a coalition composed of some protected class members may gain greater administrative attention. These individuals are protected by various federal and state regulations and often seek recourse under job-discrimination laws, which protect workers from bias based on race, gender, ethnicity, age or disability. Human resource departments and senior administrators have become particularly sensitive to issues arising from such protected classes due to the possibility of large legal settlements.
Make a persuasive case against bullying.
Gather data that show the cost of turnover, absenteeism, lost productivity, lost reputation, etc. (Gray, 2005). Senior administrators are often much more accustomed to and responsive to quantitative data (with reasonable assumptions) than to arguments based on what is the right, proper, and fair thing to do as is sometimes done in trying to persuade them to take action with respect to such human resource-related initiatives as addressing workplace bullying.
The similarity between societal concerns about sexual harassment in the 1970s and societal feelings about workplace bullying today are strikingly similar. In the early 1970s there was a rather cavalier attitude that “boys will be boys and girls will be girls” and that it was foolish for governments and organizations to legislate and regulate work behavior between the sexes. As most organizations are keenly aware today, compliance with sexual harassment policies and regulations is a key priority in most human resource departments involving costly penalties that have garnered the attention of most school officials. Saillant (2005) reports that today there is a similar discussion about bullying. Nevertheless, Los Angeles attorney Michael Bononi, an expert in employment law, said “You could end up with ‘He’s been mean to me for three months and yelled at me four times’ as a triable offense. It could create a nightmare for employers and the courts…. There is no law against being a jerk in the workplace…. A no-bullying law, unless narrowly defined, would be ripe for abuse and frivolous lawsuits” (Saillant, 2005). Such haughty comments today may be the exception in the future.
Avoid solo confrontations. Confrontations without witnesses open the possibility for the leader to twist the encounter into a “you said/she said” scenario. Try to bring about more transparency to the interactions. Bringing a small, but well-regarded, group to a confrontation with the leader will impress upon the bully that several persons are concerned and that this meeting is completely on the record. Offer to work together with the leader to improve the situation, but be resolute about benchmarks and timelines for improvements.
Anticipate the usual defense: I was only kidding. Consider the following scenario: “I didn’t know that he would feel so humiliated when I called him a faggot—it’s only a word—it doesn’t mean anything—I was just kidding.” “I didn’t mean it. Truly I didn’t. I was just kidding” is a common response of bullies and the target should be prepared to deal with this defense proffered by the perpetrator to cajole others into overlooking what happened under the teasing disguise (Kowalski, 2000). Indeed, it is the ambiguity of such situations that has appeal to the bully. That is, occasionally some people attach positive meaning to a tease, perceiving it as humorous, playful, or even enjoyable (prosocial teasing). At other times, people have a negative perception of teasing, seeing is as hurtful and as indicating that the teaser does not adequately value his or her relationship with them (i.e., antisocial teasing; Leary, Springer, Negel, Ansell, & Evans, 1998). Differences in the perception of the prosocial versus antisocial nature of teasing are nowhere more apparent than in targets’ and perpetrators’ perspectives. Relative to targets, perpetrators minimize the negative impact of the tease, perceive the situation more favorably, and downplay any malevolent intentions (Kowalski, 2000; Kowalski, 2004; Kowalski, Walker, Wilkinson, Queen, & Sharpe, 2003). Bullies like teasing because it gives them a sense of control. If an individual can tease someone then in essence, for that period of time, that person has a certain degree of control over the target. Similarly, the bully can raise his or her self-esteem by putting down another in a teasing manner and in the process make themselves feel better (Kowalski, 2003).
As is so often the case in society today, there is a tendency to blame the victim (Chernus, 2003). Blaming the victim is an attempt to implicate the target of a bully as being partially responsible for the cruel teasing bestowed upon him or her by some thug. The blame, in this case is the target’s thin skin and the belief that blaming the victim releases the bully from the responsibility for what he or she has done. A typical follow-up to this blaming the victim is some sort of allusion to the fact that the “victim needs to develop a thicker skin and become less sensitive. After all, schools are highly competitive environments not for the faint of heart, and teasing is just part of the game.”
Whether alleged perpetrators intended malice or not, they have the right to know that they are likely to be judged in terms of the consequences of their behavior rather than their declared intent. “I didn’t know that would offend you” no longer passes muster as a justification. Ignorance simply should not wash as an excuse.
Hitting a dead end. If an individual hits a dead end, more drastic measures may be in order. Then, it might be advisable to consider one or more of the following alternatives. It should be noted that such activities are very serious and could easily backfire for a teacher and so careful deliberation is required before initiating the following:
Create a strategy for undermining or ousting the bully leader. Deciding to undermine or topple a leader is a difficult moral and political choice. At what point does the principal’s toxic behavior warrant this kind of problematic action, which could possibly drag an teacher down a toxic slope too? Sometimes, all other avenues are blocked, and the toxic impact of the leader’s decisions and actions is great and growing greater. Then, this may be the only available alternative, other than soldiering on at the risk of becoming complicit in the principal’s bullying.
Initial planning for ousting a toxic principal is usually best done quietly at first, with a relatively small, committed group. Eventually, however, an open call to arms may be necessary.
Here, too, documentation is key to convincing potential collaborators. Due diligence should alert an individual to which of the administrator’s peers and/or supervisors share similar concerns. Approach the leader’s peers and supervisors one at a time. Yet, here again, a small coalition of informed and influential followers, representing the larger group of disaffected followers, works best. When a critical (both in numbers and status) nucleus has been achieved, then it is time to arrange a meeting with key organizational executives. Alerting the media or appropriate regulatory bodies may be the only remaining way to stop the damage if key administrators refuse to act in the face of demonstrable unethical or criminal practices. This step is fraught with danger and difficulty. Due diligence is necessary to ensure that the media and/or regulatory sources chosen have a record of unshakeable integrity. It is also important that the documentation provided is accurate and supportable by supplementary data from other sources. At this point, of course, a teacher has entered the territory of the whistleblower, a terrain loaded with land mines. This is not a task for the meek of heart or for those who want a quick resolution. And, before selecting this course, consider the inevitable impact not only on you, but also on close associates and family, who may suffer “collateral damage.” Nonetheless, looking yourself in the mirror may leave a teacher little choice.
Leaving is also an honorable strategy, particularly when a teacher is convinced either that they and their collaborators cannot prevail or that the toxic impact is limited solely to the teacher. Leaving could entail both asking for a transfer to another school, department, or unit or could mean quitting a particular school. Some teachers depart when the physical or psychological impact grows too great to bear. When leaving is the only way to preserve one’s integrity and/or mental or physical health or that of your family, it is probably time to move on. Other considerations include social, financial, and/or political costs. Martyrdom is not a necessary part of honor and as Abraham Lincoln (1864) once indicated, “no man is good enough to govern another man without that man’s consent” (p. ).
Combating and preventing workplace bullying: Organizational options
Creating a “bully-free” environment is a proactive step that should be taken to improve the effectiveness of a school. By developing a “bully-free” environment, a school or school district can create a culture of respect in which innovation, performance, and healthy communication can flourish. To become a top performer in a school district a school must be able to recognize and rid itself of bullying or risk losing their single most important competitive asset—their talented and otherwise dedicated teachers. Eradicating bullying is not “nice to do,” it’s a “must do.” The survival of the institution depends on it.
Yet many school districts have been slow to respond to this workplace toxin. Individual states and educational institutions within the U.S. have been more proactive in developing student anti-bullying statutes than have domestic business organizations. Currently, 17 states and Guam have enacted legislation aimed at curbing bullying by K-12 students on school property (Dounay, 2005) compared to none with anti-bullying workplace legislation. This difference may be because employers do not know where to begin in addressing bullying behavior. Hence, the following suggestions are offered to organizations who want to contain, correct, and curtail such activity. Like many maxims in management, these recommendations are simple to state but challenging to implement. Much can be learned about addressing bullying by examining what organizations have done with respect to sexual harassment and many of the suggestions come from this area (Mulligan & Foy, 2003; Pearce & DiLullo, 2001). Appendix A also provides a starting place by developing a policy.
Establish organizational values for dignity and respect of all workers
Moral philosopher Immanuel Kant developed an ethical framework which asserts that people are entitled to respect because they are moral beings possessing dignity (Kant, 1964). Numerous organizations have followed Kant’s “categorical imperative” establishing organization-wide expectations of civil interactions among employees based on dignity and respect. Some examples include:
• We treat each other with respect (from Boeing’s [aircraft] integrity statement)
• Above all, employees are provided the same concern, respect, and caring attitude within the organization that they are expected to share externally with all customers (from Southwest Airlines’ mission statement)
• We are responsible to our employees. . . .We must respect their dignity (from the Johnson & Johnson’s [pharmaceutical] credo)
• We treat each other with respect and dignity (from AT&T’s [telecommunications] value statement)
• All Team Members are treated with dignity and respect (from Tyson Foods’ Team Member Bill of Rights)
Whereas, many organizations create stringent guidelines about how employees should treat customers, few articulate how employees should treat one another (Pearson & Porath, 2005). This is the first step in establishing a culture of workplace dignity and respect and one that does not violate norms of decency and civility (Hornstein, 1996). Julius, Baldridge, and Pfeffer (1999) advocate one absolute for educational leaders: unless they are perceived as having the highest values relating to integrity, honesty, fairness, and selfishness, they will lose their ability to function as faculty leaders.
Interestingly, Andersson and Pearson (1999) noted that a “climate of informality” pervades some organizations that often encourage employees to behave toward one another in disrespectful ways. Conversely, employees in organizations with a more formal organizational culture (less permissive) tend to behave more respectfully toward each other, as behavioral norms are clearly understood and therefore less likely to be misinterpreted or neglected (Keashly & Jagatic, 2002).
Develop a policy on workplace bullying and distribute it
The cornerstone of employers’ efforts to prevent bullying is a policy statement. Such expressions have been found to facilitate change (Glover, Cartwright, Gough, & Johnson, 1998). A widely circulated written policy statement puts all employees on full alert that the organization actively seeks to identify and eliminate all instances of workplace bullying.
Simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) do not usually amount to bullying. The goal of a school district’s efforts to prevent job-related bullying is simply to prevent or punish harassing behavior within the limits of the organization’s authorization.
A general policy pledging a nondiscriminatory workplace is not enough. The bullying policy statement should be a clear, emphatic, and easily understood condemnation and prohibition of abuse. It should be free of confusing legal jargon. Finally, it should include examples of conduct that are targeted for immediate elimination.
Sioux City, Iowa and Broward County school districts American Express, Burger King, and J.C. Penney are institutions that have banned bullying on the job (see Appendix A). The policy statement should be as specific as possible about the types of actions that are outlawed, while making it clear that the list is only representative, not exhaustive, of all possible violations. Additionally, school district employees should be made aware that their conduct away from the school or office is work-related (e.g., after-hours events sponsored by the organization) is also subject to the policy.
To be optimally effective the bullying policy should be distributed in writing, to all employees, on multiple occasions, with an acknowledgment from each staff and faculty member that the policy was received, read, and understood. A policy that is not properly distributed tends to have little effect. Employers must therefore ensure that each worker is provided with a written copy of the policy (McCune, 1997). Distribution should take place at the time of initial hiring, with subsequent distributions thereafter. Employee handbooks, annual performance reviews, periodic training sessions, company newsletters, and manuals provide opportunities to enhance policy distribution, ensuring awareness by all staff. Permanent and prominent placement of the bullying policy on bulletin boards and the district’s and school’s computer network can also be effective. In addition, school districts should appoint knowledgeable individuals to be generally available in a confidential setting to respond to staff questions concerning the policy. Finally, written acknowledgment of receipt of a copy of the policy and knowledge of its contents will prove helpful against a subsequent charge of bullying.
Pay attention to who is hired
Studies by Pearson and Porath (2005) have indicated bullies tend to leave a trail of disrespectful behaviors, and school districts can readily identify repeat offenders. Such bullies tend to be known throughout their school and district. Despite this trend, however, Pearson and Porath (2005) found that bullies were often passed around like organizational hot potatoes, with each superintendent hoping to eliminate the problem by handing it off to another department.
To avoid hiring bullies, job candidates’ references should be checked thoroughly, especially when the candidate will have significant institutional stature. When a search firm has been used to identify candidates, it should not be the sole source entrusted to check references of final candidates. Similarly, a reference check should not be limited to the list of contacts provided by the job candidate. Rather, those within the firm who are involved in the candidate selection process should be encouraged to talk with personal contacts at various organizational levels with whom the candidate has worked.
Additionally, school districts may want to consider using psychological testing. For example, the Conditional Reasoning Test of Aggression (CRT-A; Harcourt Assessment Inc., 2005) helps employers screen out applicants with aggressive tendencies. The CRT-A is an effective instrument for identifying aggressive-prone individuals and may serve to pinpoint those less likely to respond inappropriately to stress, frustration, or anger.
Finally, Bedeian (2002) suggests that in the selection process it might helpful if interviewers are sensitive to applicants who have a fondness for the use of “I” in statements of achievements (e.g., “I did this,” “I did that,” “I raised test scores”). Such a tendency may reflect a full-blown case of imperious self-aggrandizement and ego tripping characteristic of what Bedeian (2002) calls “The Dean’s Disease.”
Adopt a 360-degree performance appraisal system
Curtailing bullying may be the ultimate rationale for 360-degree feedback (Bohlander & Snell, 2004). By soliciting anonymous bottom-up input, administrators and executives can build candid perspectives about bullies and detect patterns of abusiveness to ferret out offenders. Indeed, instigators who are disrespectful to their subordinates or peers are often seen as experts at managing upward (Pearson & Porath, 2005). They may take great care in controlling their bullying behavior so that it dodges the attention of those who have the institutional power to correct it. Administrators who are concerned about bullying should seek feedback about employee-to-employee interactions and clear the path for problems to surface, whether through human relations channels or through open door policies. When reports of instigators’ bullying acts do not match their image projected in an interview those in charge should withhold judgment, gathering additional information from lower levels of the organization to assure that savvy instigators are not feigning a positive image to superiors.
Institute complaint procedures
An effective complaint procedure encourages faculty and staff to report bullying conduct before it becomes severe or pervasive. If an employee promptly uses the procedure, the school district often can stop the bullying before actionable harm occurs. The procedure for reporting incidents of bullying should do the following:
• specify the steps to take to initiate a bullying complaint
• encourage (but not require) the alleged victim to confront the offending person
• prohibit retaliation against anyone reporting bullying
• encourage employees to report all occurrences of bullying
• promote confidentiality
It is important that employees understand the operation of the complaint process and how to initiate a charge. Employees should be given the names of a variety of individuals who are authorized to receive complaints. The more people who are listed, the easier it will be for legitimate complaints to be made. The publication of names, locations, and phone numbers of people to whom information may be submitted will ease the alleged victim’s stress of reporting. The written process should also specify times and locations where complaints are received that are convenient to staff. Officials need to be available whenever and wherever employees are normally at work.
A complaint process can be attached to the company’s bullying policy statement and might read as follows, “Any employee who believes that he or she has been the victim of bullying, discrimination, or retaliation by any work-related individual, including but not limited to district-wide administrators and officials, principals, supervisors, or coworkers, or has witnessed such conduct should immediately report the incident to their supervisor or to [list individuals who are designated to receive complaints, with phone numbers and office location].”
Suggesting, but not requiring, confrontation with the alleged bully may be effective in stopping bullying behavior. It is possible that the harasser may not be aware that his or her conduct is offensive. A simple request to cease the offensive conduct may be all that is required to correct the situation before it becomes severe. Such notification has other potential benefits. It puts the offended persons in greater compliance with the mandate that they take reasonable care to avoid harm. Also, it helps to deny offenders the use of the defense that they were ignorant that their words or behaviors were considered offensive—a defense that is often well received by investigators, arbitrators, and panels. Employees should also inform the offender that the actions are considered offensive and unwelcome and that they should be halted immediately.
School districts should encourage staff and faculty to report any occurrences of bullying. A seemingly isolated incident may be part of a pattern of conduct or, when combined with other seemingly harmless incidents, may rise to the level of severe and pervasive. Thus, any incident of bullying, even seemingly minor ones, should be reported promptly so that appropriate action may be taken to ensure that such activity does not continue. Early reporting will allow for employer intervention and corrective action before a situation escalates.
All reports of bullying should be dealt with in a confidential manner and information shared only with those who have a need to know. However, complete confidentiality cannot be guaranteed and employees must be informed that an appropriate investigation of the complaint will require sharing information with others as required to properly explore and correct the harassing conduct. School districts have a duty to promptly investigate allegations of bullying and will need to share information with the alleged bully, witnesses, and others who may become involved.
Closely related to the complaint procedure is a system for investigation. An effective investigative process must be sensitive to and respectful of the interests of all parties involved. Once a school district becomes aware of bullying from a complaint or otherwise, the guidelines should establish a duty for the employer to investigate. Additionally, to avoid charges of favoritism, standard but flexible guidelines for investigations should be established before claims are received. People authorized to conduct investigations should be adequately qualified and trained on harassment and discrimination law, company policy, and in skills needed to conduct an investigation that requires interviewing techniques and evaluating credibility. Investigators must maintain their objectivity and refrain from forming or expressing early opinions to parties or witnesses during the investigation process. In the event that a school district official is the focus of the bully claim, an outside independent investigator should be considered. Investigators must realize the impact that bullying can have on victims, but should also realize that a false claim of bullying can negatively impact the career of the accused. Defamation is a genuine concern.
Monitor turnover rates, conduct confidential employee satisfaction surveys,
and conduct exit interviews to identify problem areas
A key indicator of employee dissatisfaction with their job is quitting (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000) and is particularly important to track. For every eight employees who see themselves as targets of bullying, one is likely to exit. To complicate matters, most of those who leave because of bullying do not report the real reason that they are exiting. Some do not tell because they think that the district does not care; others are afraid they will sound weak or whiny. Many have reported that they remain silent because they believe that in their schools and departments the potential for negative repercussions outweighs the hope of corrective action.
To further complicate the situation, when bullying is the reason for departure the signals are hard to recognize. Most employees do not storm out in a huff immediately following an incident. Rather, targets of bullying tend to remain in their jobs for months, a year, or longer, working with less effort and enthusiasm while lining up new positions in other organizations (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2004). Given the time gap between bullying and the target’s departure, any institutional memory that might have connected the event to the exit fades. As a result, this dramatic impact of bullying may not leave a highly discernible trail. Nonetheless, facts known by departing employees are crucial to correcting bullying. In some cases, school districts should consider conducting post-departure interviews with former staff to track potential bullying after those employees have distanced themselves from the organization and they are stable in their new work environments. The cost of doing so is minimal, and if the school district is serious about rooting out bullying, the insight gained through candid disclosures can be invaluable.
Provide training in social skills and interpersonal communication
Many persons become involved in bullying encounters because they do not know how to respond to provocations from others in a way that will soothe these persons rather than fan the flames of intimidation characteristic of bullying. Similarly, they do not know how to make their wishes known to others and they grow increasingly frustrated when people do not respond as they desire. Often, they have an abrasive style of self-expression coupled with insensitivity to signs of others’ emotional states. As a result of these issues, they experience severe, repeated frustration, and they say or do things that unnecessarily anger the people around them. Persons lacking in social skills seem to account for a high proportion of varying degrees of violence and bullying in many societies (Toch, 1985). Thus, equipping staff with social skills they lack may reduce incidences of bullying.
Improving individual competencies such as conflict resolution, negotiation, dealing with difficult people, stress management, listening, and coaching can curtail bullying. When people master these skills, the likelihood that they will become involved in bullying encounters with others seems to decrease dramatically (e.g., Schneider & Byrne, 1987).
Take claims of bullying seriously
Bullying thrives in environments where input from employees is limited. Administrators and leaders must weigh target claims carefully if they want individuals to continue to report incidents. The mentality in some organizations—“Get tough, get a thicker skin, that’s why they call it work”—will not contribute to institutional effectiveness when bullying is inevitably brought to management’s attention. Once employees learn that no one will bother to investigate, correct, or curtail the problem they soon recognize that by speaking up they may actually increase the risk of repercussions from the instigator (Ferris, 2004). Keep in mind what American patriot, Thomas Paine, said over two centuries ago: “Evil prospers when good men do nothing” (1776, p. 46).
If it is determined that bullying occurred, effective remedial action is required. Severity of the conduct, history of similar conduct, and number of violations of any type are factors bearing on the action to be taken. Remedial actions range from a warning letter to required training and on-going close monitoring. Ultimately, termination of employment should be considered in preventing bullying in extreme instances or with recalcitrants. However, these actions must not have an adverse effect upon the claimant. For example, transfers or reassignments of complainants or witnesses to separate them from the bully may be viewed as unlawful retaliation. If remedial action is taken, subsequent monitoring and interviews should occur to ensure that the action has been effective in terminating the bullying, that bullying has not resumed, and that there is no retaliation.
Additionally, some easily implemented internal operating procedures and policies can help to prevent bullying (Zapf & Gross, 2001). For example, decisions on hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, special assignments and the like that can be made by committee, or at least by two individuals, will help to ferret out real or potential bullying. Documentation and preview of such decisions by superiors will also help to assure a legitimate basis for a tangible job action. Finally, regular reviews of operating procedures, as well as periodic audits of policies, will enhance the opportunity to prevent bullying and serve to aid in the defense of a claim.
Prevent and monitor attempts to retaliate against the target for complaining about abuse
A plan that requires claimants to report bullying to an immediate supervisor is unlikely to be effective when the supervisor is the alleged perpetrator. Anticipating the possibility that an initial report may not be handled correctly, efficiently, or in a timely manner, faculty and staff should be told of secondary reporting routes. If a complaint involves an immediate supervisor or an employee does not want to report an incident to their supervisor for any reason, or their initial report has not been dealt with the complaint in a timely or satisfactory manner, the employee should be encouraged to report the matter promptly to persons specifically designated to receive such reports (e.g., a human resource manager or representative). Telephone numbers and office locations should again be listed.
School districts must stress that employees will be protected from retaliation for opposing bullying or for participating in proceedings brought by alleged victims. Former employees are also protected. Written policies consistently applied by the employer are of great importance in explaining actions that may be challenged as retaliatory (Cortina & Magley, 2003). Employers should indicate that retaliation against anyone who files a complaint in accordance with a bullying policy, provides information related to a complaint, or participates in an investigation is strictly prohibited and will result in appropriate disciplinary action.
Implement regular accountability forums
When organizational leaders are required to hold regular town-hall meetings or accountability forums, there is increased likelihood that they will think more deeply about the decisions and actions that they have taken or are contemplating. When leaders expect to be asked regularly to explain the thinking behind their initiatives, they inevitable become far more reflective and self-conscious as they engage in their management activities. Such meetings must focus not only on positive or negative outcomes, but also on the process by which decisions were reached and actions taken. Again, the idea is to make transparent many such practices.
Conclusion
Adult-on-adult bullying remains among many school district’s unchecked scandals, lowering morale and productivity while driving health-care costs up and making school districts vulnerable to lawsuits or disability claims. It destroys individuals, groups, and organizations. It is particularly insidious because bullies tend to focus their poisonous efforts on the organization’s most competent workers whom they perceive as a threat to their power. Failing to deal resolutely with the complex forces that foster our acquiescence to bullies will only promote the destruction such individuals create. Wishful thinking and other forms of avoiding the reality of bullying are deeply imbedded in most corporate cultures however the price for failing to confront bullying is simply too high (Bossidy & Charan, 2004). Thus, the business case for clear and openly supported anti-bullying policies and their strict, timely enforcement is compelling.
Much more attention (research and regulatory response) is directed at bully behavior in European and Scandinavian countries, Canada, and Australia than in the U.S. For example, the prevention of bullying is one of the objectives in the Communication from the European Commission on a new strategy regarding health and safety at work (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2002). It is hoped that American organizations begin to recognize that bullies poison their work environment with low morale, job dissatisfaction, fear, anger, and depression. It must be understood that the employer pays for this in lost efficiency, absenteeism, sick leave due to stress-related illnesses, high staff turnover, severance packages, law suits, self-defensive paperwork, and wasted time at work involving targets defending themselves and networking for support. In extreme cases, violent incidents may be tragic results of workplace bullying (Canada Safety Council, 2000).
No administrator needs to read a court decision to know that behavior that violates standards of human decency cannot be tolerated. Yet, managers also know that individuals occasionally violate social and legal norms. To minimize the chance of such deviations, school districts must act proactively by establishing policies and action plans that prevent bullying. Eliminating bullying is one of the many pieces needed to manage people well. Organizations that effectively manage people outperform those that do not by 30% to 40% (Pfeffer, 1998), while maintaining a pleasant and potentially productive working environment.
While not specifically addressed in this paper, bullying by parents must also be considered when discussing bullying in the educational workplace. Discuss this more with co-author. Further research regarding workplace bullying and its impact in the educational profession is warranted especially as American society has experienced increased levels of rudeness, incivilities, and workplace harassment, including bullying.
References
Acton, J. E. E. D. (Lord). (1949). Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887, reprinted in
Acton, Essays on freedom and power. Boston: Beacon Press.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat?: The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755-778.
Bassman, E. S. (1992). Abuse in the workplace: Management remedies and bottom line impact.
New York: Quorum.
Bedeian, A. G. (2002). The dean’s disease: How the dark side of power manifests itself in the office of dean. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(2), 164-173.
Björkvist, K., Österman, K., & Hjelt-Bäck, M. (1994). Aggression among university employees.
Aggressive Behavior, 20, 173-184.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2003). Breaking the silence: Overcoming the problem of principal
mistreatment of teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2004). The dark side of school leadership: Implications for administrator
preparation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3, 245-273
Bohlander, G., & Snell, S. (2004). Managing human resources. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western.
Bossidy, L., &. Charan, R. (2004). Confronting reality: Doing what matters to get things right.
New York: Crown Business.
Brozak, J. (2010, September 3). How do I Stop School Principals Who Bully Teachers?
Retrieved September 3, 2010, from
Bullying Basics. (n. d.). Retrieved June 12, 2006, from
Burd, M. (2005, June). Workplace rights: Bullying tactics. Management Today, p. 19.
Canada Safety Council (2000). Bullying in the workplace. Safety Canada, 44(4), 1-9.
Chernus, I. (2003). Blaming the Victim is an Old Habit. Retrieved June 26, 2006, from
Clermont, K. M., & Schwab, S. J. 2009. Employment discrimination plaintiffs in federal
court: From bad to worse. Harvard Law and Policy Review, 3, 1-33.
Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following
mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 247- 265.
Davenport, N., Distler-Schwartz, R. D., & Elliott, G. P. (1999). Mobbing: Emotional abuse in
the American workplace. Ames, IA: Civil Society Publishing.
Dounay, J. (2005). State anti-bullying statutes. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from
Dunlap, A. J., & Andelman, B. (1996). Mean business: How I save bad companies and make
good companies great. New York: Fireside.
. (2010). U.S. Education Secretary to Keynote Department’s First-Ever Bullying Summit.
Retrieved August 13, 2010, from
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. Zapf, D. & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the
workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 3-30). London: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Mikkelsen, E. G. (2003). Individual effects of exposure to bullying at work. In S.
Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 103-126). London: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and
private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5,
185-201.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2002). Bullying at work: Fact sheet 23.
Retrieved May 29, 2006, from
facts23_en.pdf
Farrell, L. U. (2002, March 15). Workplace bullying’s high cost: $180M in lost time, productivity. Orlando Business Journal. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from . orlando/stories/2002/03/18/focus1.html
Ferris, P. (2004). A preliminary typology of organizational response to allegations of workplace
bullying: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. British Journal of Guidance &
Counseling, 32(3), 389-395.
Field, T. (2002, February 1). The hidden cost of a bully on the balance sheet. Accounting and Business. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from accountingandbusiness/315685
Folger, R. (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In J. K. Murningham (Ed.), Social
psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp. 161-183). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Glendinning, P. M. (2001). Workplace bullying: Curing the cancer of the American workplace.
Public Personnel Management, 30, 269-286.
Glomb, T. M. (2002). Workplace anger and aggression: Informing conceptual models with data
from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(1), 20-36.
Glover, D., Cartwright, N., Gough, G., & Johnson, M. (1998). The introduction of anti-bullying policies: Do policies help in the management of change? School Leadership &
Management, 18(1), 89-105.
Gray, C. L. (2005, September 6). Is your boss a bully? Jobs in the Money: The Marketplace for
Accounting & Financial Professionals. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from
accounting_finance/article/bully-boss
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. A. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and
correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for
the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463-488.
Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers,
subordinates, and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace
factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 897-913.
Harcourt Assessment Inc. (2005). Conditional Reasoning Test of Aggression.
Retrieved (November 27, 2005), (CRTA%E2%84%A2).htm
Harlos, K. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2000). Emotion and injustice in the workplace. In S. Fineman
(Ed.), Emotion in organizations (2nd ed., pp. 255-276). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Manchester, UK:
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.
Hornstein, H. (1996). Brutal bosses and their prey. New York: Riverhead Books.
Institute of Charted Accountants in Australia (2003, September). Bullies are bad news. Retrieved
May 29, 2006, from
International Labor Organization. (2001, March). SafeWork: The cost of violence and bullying at
work. Retrieved June 8, 2006, from safework/violence/costof.htm
Janis, I. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5(6), 43-48, 74-76.
Julius, D. J., Baldridge, J. V., & Pfeffer, J. (1999). A memo from Machiavelli. Journal of Higher
Education, 70, 113-133.
Kant, I. (1964). Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. New York: Harper and Row.
Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues. Journal
of Emotional Abuse, 1, 85-117.
Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2000). The nature, extent, and impact of emotional abuse in the
workplace: Results of a statewide survey. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Toronto, Canada.
Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2002). By any other name: American perspectives on workplace
bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.). Bullying and
emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives on research and practice (pp. 31-61). London, UK: Taylor Francis.
Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A
preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9, 341-357.
Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kipnis, D. (1984). The view from the top. Psychology Today, 18(12), 30-36.
Kowalski, R. M. (2000). ‘I was only kidding!’: Victims’ and perpetrators’ perceptions of teasing.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 231-241.
Kowalski, R. M. (2003). Complaining, teasing, and other annoying behaviors. New Haven, CN:
Yale University Press.
Kowalski, R. M. (2004). Proneness to, perceptions of, and responses to teasing: The influence of
both intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. European Journal of Personality, 18, 331-349.
Kowalski, R. M., Walker, S., Wilkinson, R., Queen, A., & Sharpe, B. (2003). Lying, cheating,
and complaining, and other aversive interpersonal behaviors: A narrative examination of the darker side of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 471-490.
Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). The causes,
phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1225-1237.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5,
119-126.
Lincoln, A. (xxxx). Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings (Vol. 2): 1859-1865. XXXXXXX
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005a). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians—and how we can survive them. New York. Oxford University Press.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005b, January/February). The allure of toxic leaders: Why followers rarely
escape their clutches. Ivey Business Journal, 1-8.
Lombardo, M. M., & McCall, Jr., M. W. (1984, January). The intolerable boss. Psychology
Today, 44-48.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American
workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree and impact. Journal of Management Studies,
44, 837-862.
MacDonald, J. (2001, October 19). Bullying employees can cost your company. Retrieved June
12, 2006, from
Martin, W. M., Lopez, Y. P., & Lavan, H. N. (2009). What legal protections do victims of bullies
in the workplace have? Journal of Workplace Rights, 14, 143-156.
Matheny, K. (2010, April 7). Schools Tackle Teacher-on-Teacher Bullying. USA Today.
Retrieved August 15, 2010, from
McCune, J. C. (1997). Get the message. Journal of Property Management, 62(3), 42-44.
Milford, M. (2003). Bullies can sometimes be bosses. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from http://
servlets/wpvDoc?action=display&key=1390
Monahan, R. (2010, April 15). Brooklyn Principal Yolanda Ramirez under Investigation for
Intimidating Teachers over School Surveys. Retrieved August 31, 2010, from
Mulligan, J., & Foy, N. (2003, September-October). Not in my company: Preventing sexual
harassment. Industrial Management, 45(5), 26-30.
Namie, G. (2000). U.S. hostile workplace survey 2000. Benicia, CA: Campaign Against
Workplace Bullying.
Namie, G. (2003, November/December). Workplace bullying: Escalated incivility. Ivey Business
Journal, 1-6.
Namie, G., & Namie, R. (1999). Bullyproof yourself at work. Pfungstadt, Germany: DoubleDoc
Press.
Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2000). The bully at work: What you can do to stop the hurt and reclaim
your dignity on the job. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence
concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391-419.
Northwest National Life Insurance Company (NNLI). (1993). Fear and violence in the
workplace. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
One Manager in Three. (2005). One manager in three has been bullied at work, survey reveals.
Professional Engineering, 18(17), 9.
O’Reilly, F. (2000, September 21). Women achieve workplace equality—as bullies. National
Post, A1, A2.
Paine, T. (1776). Common sense. Philadelphia: W. & T. Bradford.
Pearce II, J. A., & DiLullo, S. A. (2001). A business policy statement model for eliminating
sexual harassment and related employer liability. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 66(2), 12-21.
Pearson, C. M. (2000). Workplace “incivility” study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.
Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L., & Porath, C. L. (2004). Workplace incivility. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector, Counterproductive workplace behavior: Interventions of actors and targets (pp. 12-34). American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace
incivility: No time for ‘nice’? Think again. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 1-12.
Pfeffer J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Politics Daily. (2010, August 12). Arne Duncan: Bullying in Schools Is a ‘Gateway to Hate.’
Retrieved August 14, 2010, from
Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied
Social Psychology, 7, 199-208.
Rayner, C. (1998). Bullying at work. Stoke-on-Kent, UK: Staffordshire University Business
School.
Rayner, C., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. (2002). Workplace bullying: What we know, who is to
blame, and what can we do? New York: Taylor & Francis.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
Multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.
Rogers, K. A., & Kelloway, E. K. (1997). Violence at work: Personal and organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 63-71.
Rohrs, S., & Brooks, K. (2006, February 13). Teacher settles lawsuit with VCUSD for $225,000.
Vallejo (CA) Times-Herald, p.A1.
Ryan, K. D., & Oestreich, D. K. (1991). Driving fear out of the workplace: How to overcome the
invisible barriers to quality, productivity, and innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Saillant, C. (2005, December 5). A bulwark against bullies: Like other communities around the
United States Ventura County may look to a written policy to protect workers from abuse. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from Bully Busters at . press/latimes120505.html
Salin, D. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A comparison
of two different strategies for measuring bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 425-441.
Schat, A. C. H., Frone, M. R.,& Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Prevalence of workplace aggression
in the U.S. workforce: Findings from a national study. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling,
& J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence, (pp. 47-89). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Schneider, B. H., & Byrne, B. M. (1987). Individualizing social skills training for behavior- disordered children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(3), 444-455.
Sorokin, P. A., & Lunden. W. A. (1959). Power and mortality: Who shall guard the guardians?
Boston: Sargent.
Spencer, M. (2010). Stealing From Children: A Great Injustice of Workplace Bullying in
America’s Schools. Retrieved August 28, 2010, from
Sunbeam and “Chainsaw Al.” (n. d.). Retrieved June 26, 2006, from
sunbeam2.htm
Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health (1993). Statute Book, Ordinance
(AFS 1993: 17), Section 1 & 6.
Toch, H. (1985). Violent men. Schenkman, Cambridge, MA.
Vega, G., & Comer, D. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can
break your spirit: Bullying in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 101-109.
Working America (n. d.). My Bad Boss Contest. Retrieved June 27, 2006, from .
badboss
Workplace Bullying Institute. (n. d.). Retrieved August 15, from
Yamada, D.C. (2000). The phenomenon of ‘workplace bullying’ and the need for status-blind
hostile work environment protection. The Georgetown Law Journal, 88, 475-536.
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A
replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10 (4), 497-522.
Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job
content, social environment, and health outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 215-237.
Appendix A
Sioux City Community Schools
627 4th Street, Sioux City, Iowa 51101
Phone: 712-279-6643
Board Policy Document
First Adoption: March 9, 2009
Available at
Policy Title: Workplace Bullying
Code Number: 403.5
The purpose of this policy is to promote a healthy, positive workplace climate so that every individual is able to contribute fully to our educational community. Every person has the right to dignity at work. The rights and responsibilities described in this policy apply to all employees, parents, and all who utilize or visit District facilities.
Bullying is defined as conduct that a reasonable person would find hostile, intimidating, offensive, humiliating or an abuse of authority. It may be verbal, nonverbal, public or private. It is typically behavior repeated across multiple incidents; a single incident is rarely a violation. It may originate from any employee or from any individual to another. It is also bullying to continue policy-violating conduct when the targeted individual requests that it cease.
Illustrative examples of bullying include, but are not limited to:
1. Provocative or dehumanizing name calling
2. Belittling the person
3. Exclusion from requisite training
4. Physical isolation
5. Rumors (or failing to stop them) & gossip about a person or school’s reputation
6. Discounting or humiliating people at meetings
7. Deliberate exclusion from job-critical decision-making opportunities
8. Preventing the person from self-expression, being yelled at, being threatened, the
prohibition of speaking to others
9. Intentional deception about the true purpose of an investigatory or disciplinary meeting
10. Preventing an employee from meeting students’ academic potential
11. Moving or hiding items required for productive work
For an individual to allege a policy violation, to call it bullying according to this policy’s standard, the targeted individual must be able to demonstrate that due to the alleged bullying activity that he/she has experienced negative consequences which are affecting their ability to perform his/her job. It is the intent of this policy that such issues are identified early by the targeted individual, a co-worker or colleague, and the issue is resolved at the earliest possible stage.
This policy supplements but does not replace the District’s Discrimination and Harassment Policy (Board Policy 504.4).
Bullying must not be confused with the non-abusive exercise of management rights to assign tasks, coach, and reprimand or take disciplinary actions against employees. Any administrator, supervisor or individual in a position of leadership to whom a complaint is reported (verbally or in writing) must take appropriate action according to internal procedures. Failure to comply may result in disciplinary action.
Freedom from retaliation is protected under this policy. Retaliation is a separate offense from the original claim of bullying. Protected individuals include complainants, or any one who testifies, assists, or participates in any manner in an investigation or proceeding, internal or external, pertaining to the allegation of bullying.
Misuse of the policy is a violation of the policy itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pike Fold Primary School, Manchester UK
ANTI-HARASSMENT & ANTI-BULLYING POLICY
Policy prepared by: Julie McKeever & Rhona Hunt
Date: January 2010
Available at:
Anti-Harassment and Anti-Bullying Policy
A Policy for Pike Fold Primary School
Pike Fold Primary School supports a working environment for individuals in which dignity at work is paramount. The purpose of this policy is to support a working environment and culture in which bullying and harassment is unacceptable.
The Policy aims to:
• Prevent all forms of bullying & harassment by employees towards other employees at Pike Fold Primary School.
• Provide a way for employees who believe they have been bullied or harassed to bring about action to stop the bullying or harassment.
• Reassure employees that any issue will be taken extremely seriously and with utmost confidentiality.
• Help identify when bullying takes place.
• Illustrate actions which may be regarded as bullying
Introduction
Pike Fold recognises that all employees have the right to be treated with consideration, dignity and respect. Pike Fold seeks to support all staff in their professional development and aims to provide a happy and fulfilling environment in which to work. This policy promotes the respectful treatment of staff within our school and the protection of our employees from bullying and harassment at work. Bullying and harassment will not be tolerated by the school in any form.
Each member of staff carries personal responsibility for their own behaviour in relation to this policy and are responsible for ensuring that their conduct is in line with the standards set out in this policy. Staff should report to the appropriate manager or trade union representative, any incidents of bullying and harassment which come to their attention.
Allegations raised regarding bullying and harassment will be taken seriously and treated confidentially. The school gives an assurance that there will be no victimisation against an employee making a complaint under this policy or against employees who assist or support a colleague in making a complaint.
Bullying and harassment may be treated as a disciplinary offence and, where allegations are founded, may lead to summary dismissal. Disciplinary action may also be taken if a complaint is found to have been submitted maliciously or in bad faith.
DEFINITION: What is “bullying” and “harassment”?
There is no hard and fast definition of bullying or harassment - many people have different views about where the boundaries lie. This policy recognises the wide range of possible situations which might be encountered in the workplace, from `innocent' or inadvertent behaviour, which nevertheless offends, through to more serious cases of deliberate and persistent bullying or harassment.
The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) suggest bullying or harassment is when an individual is subject to actions or comments which the recipient views as demeaning or unacceptable. It is generally agreed these can be a persistent pattern of behaviour or a single incident if it is sufficiently serious. .Acts of bullying or harassment may be regarded as being imposed by one person or a group of people. Senior management have a responsibility to line manage employees in line with their job description.
The actions may not always be face to face, but can be via the telephone, written correspondence, e-mail, or any medium which results in an adverse effect on the individual´s job performance, personal safety or well being.
Bullying or harassment is offensive, abusive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, or perhaps unfair use of sanctions. It can make the recipient feel upset, threatened, humiliated or vulnerable, undermines self-confidence and affects their dignity. The behaviour is unsolicited, fails to respect the rights and dignity of others, and in doing so it also fails to recognise the impact that the behaviour or actions may have. Conduct which may amount to bullying or harassment is often not intended to cause offence but occurs because of a lack of awareness of other people's feelings.
Appendix 1 gives examples of unacceptable behaviours that can be considered to constitute bullying and harassment.
Responsibilities of staff and managers
All staff have personal responsibility for their own behaviour and for ensuring that they comply with the policy.
There are a number of things that staff can do to help prevent harassment, such as:
• Set a positive example by treating others with respect.
• Be aware of the school’s policy and comply with it.
• Do not make personal comments.
• Do not accept behaviour that may be offensive when directed against you or others, and take positive action to ensure that it is challenged and/or reported.
• Be supportive of colleagues who may be subject to bullying and/or harassment.
All line managers have a responsibility to implement this policy and to bring it to the attention of staff in their work area, in order to establish and maintain a work environment free of harassment.
They must:
• Treat a complaint seriously and deal with it promptly and confidentially, giving the employee and the alleged perpetrator full support during the whole process
• Set a positive example by treating others with respect and setting standards of acceptable behaviour; also, promote a working environment where harassment is unacceptable and not tolerated
• Tackle, and where possible, resolve incidents of harassment
Informal procedure
Employees are encouraged to discuss any concerns about harassment with a manager.
Actions you can take yourself:
• Keep a diary of all incidents – records of dates, times, any witnesses, your feelings etc. Keep copies of any correspondence that may be relevant, for example reports, letters, memos, notes of any meetings that relate to you.
• In many instances it is possible for the complaint to be resolved quickly by explaining directly to the harasser the effect their behaviour is having and that you want it to stop.
• You should always make it clear that if it continues you will make a formal complaint.
• If the behaviour of a person is aggressive it may be necessary to walk away making it clear you do not wish to be spoken to in that way.
• If you are not comfortable with approaching your line manager seek support from another line manager.
• Line Managers must ensure that the headteacher is informed of any incident, situation or complaint at all times.
Formal procedure
If informal attempts to resolve the situation have not been successful, or if you feel that the acts complained may not be resolved informally, this may be raised with your line manager or your trade union representative who will advise on the next steps, for example, formal investigation.
Appendix 1
Examples of Bullying & Harassment
This list is included to indicate some examples of bullying or harassment covered by this Policy (it is not an exhaustive list)
Physical: unwanted physical contact or intimidation, including unnecessary touching, patting or brushing against another employee, assault, coercing sexual behaviour, physical threats, insulting or abusive behaviour or gestures.
Verbal: remarks about appearance, derogatory or lewd comments, innuendoes, persistent name calling, statements which are suggestive/leud sexual, unwelcome, abusive, offensive, inappropriate and vulgar.
Behaviour: that denigrates or ridicules; intimidatory or physical abuse; making threats; attempts to stir up hatred against an individual or group.
Other: display or circulation of material (posters, magazines, calendars) which are sexually or racially offensive or degrading.
The following list gives more specific examples of behaviour which may amount to bullying or harassment, it is not exhaustive:
• humiliating or ridiculing others about their work
• ordering others to work below their level of competence for no reason
• removing areas of responsibility without consultation
• spreading rumours or gossip
• deliberately ignoring i.e. sending others to `Coventry´
• shouting
• pointing your finger, invading personal space, shoving, blocking or barring the way
• suggesting that others should leave the organisation
• being hostile to others
• constantly criticising others´ work and efforts
• ignoring the views of others
• playing practical jokes on people with malicious or humiliating intent
• setting unreasonable tasks or deadlines
• making false allegations against others
• engaging in excessive monitoring of the work of others
• removing the rights of others
• unreasonably obstructing an individual´s progress at work by blocking promotion or training opportunities without a genuine reason
• causing embarrassment by disciplining staff in public
• deliberate misrepresentation of the views of others and misuse of position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broward County Public Schools, Florida
Anti-bullying Policy 5.9
Date: 4/30/10
Available at:
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, IS COMMITTED TO
PROTECTING ITS STUDENTS, EMPLOYEES, AND APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSION FROM BULLYING, HARASSMENT, OR DISCRIMINATION FOR ANY REASON AND OF ANY TYPE. THE SCHOOL BOARD BELIEVES THAT ALL STUDENTS AND EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO A SAFE, EQUITABLE, AND HARASSMENT-FREE SCHOOL EXPERIENCE. BULLYING, HARASSMENT, OR DISCRIMINATION WILL NOT BE TOLERATED AND SHALL BE JUST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION. THIS POLICY SHALL BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED CONSISTENTLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS AND THE BOARD'S COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS. CONDUCT THAT CONSTITUTES BULLYING, HARASSMENT OR DISCRIMINATION, AS DEFINED HEREIN, IS PROHIBITED. POLICY 4001.1, NONDISCRIMINATION STATEMENT POLICY, ADDRESSES REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DEFINED FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PROTECTED CATEGORIES OF PERSONS.
IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT A BASIC UNIVERSAL PREVENTION CURRICULUM BE IN PLACE SO THAT EVERY SCHOOL WILL RECEIVE A FOUNDATION OF PREVENTION UPON WHICH TO BUILD A CULTURE OF HEALTH, WELLNESS, SAFETY, RESPECT AND EXCELLENCE.
The standards of this policy constitute a specific, focused, coordinated, integrated, culturally sensitive system of supports for all students, staff, families, and community agencies that will improve relations within each school. It is designed to ensure that every school has staff that have been trained and are supported in their school’s efforts to provide awareness, intervention training, and instructional strategies on prevention, including violence prevention, to each staff, parent, and student in the District and to direct follow up when incidents are reported and/or occur.
I. Definitions
A. “Bullying” means systematically and chronically inflicting physical hurt or
psychological distress on one or more students or employees. It is further defined as:
unwanted purposeful written, verbal, nonverbal, or physical behavior, including but not
limited to any threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing gesture, by an adult or student,
that has the potential to create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational
environment or cause long term damage; cause discomfort or humiliation; or
unreasonably interfere with the individual’s school performance or participation, is
carried out repeatedly and is often characterized by an imbalance of power.
Bullying may involve, but is not limited to:
1. unwanted teasing
2. threatening
3. intimidating
4. stalking
5. cyberstalking
6. cyberbullying
7. physical violence
8. theft
9. sexual, religious, or racial harassment
10. public humiliation
11. destruction of school or personal property
12. social exclusion, including incitement and/or coercion
13. rumor or spreading of falsehoods
B. “Harassment” means any threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing gesture, use of
technology, computer software, or written, verbal or physical conduct directed against a
student or school employee that:
1. places a student or school employee in reasonable fear of harm to his or her person
or damage to his or her property;
2. has the effect of substantially interfering with a student’s educational performance,
or employee’s work performance, or either’s opportunities, or benefits;
3. has the effect of substantially negatively impacting a student’s or employee’s
emotional or mental well-being; or
4. has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of a school and/or
school district work environment.
C. “Cyberstalking”, as defined in Florida State Statute 784.048(d), means to engage in a
course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or
language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed
at or about a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and
serving no legitimate purpose.
D. “Cyberbullying” is defined as the willful and repeated harassment and intimidation of a person through the use of digital technologies, including, but not limited to, email, blogs, texting on cell phones, social websites (e.g., MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, etc.), chat rooms, “sexting”, instant messaging, or video voyeurism.
*Note: Per F.S. 810.145, voyeurism, which may be utilized in cyberbullying, in and of
itself, is a criminal offense.
E. “Bullying”, “Cyberbullying”, and/or “Harassment” also encompass:
1. retaliation against a student or school employee by another student or school
employee for asserting or alleging an act of bullying, harassment, or discrimination.
2. retaliation also includes reporting a baseless act of bullying, harassment, or
discrimination that is not made in good faith.
3. perpetuation of conduct listed in the definition of bullying, harassment, and/or
discrimination by an individual or group with intent to demean, dehumanize,
embarrass, or cause emotional or physical harm to a student or school employee by:
a) incitement or coercion;
b) accessing or knowingly and willingly causing or providing access to data
or computer software through a computer, computer system, or computer
network within the scope of the District school system; or
c) acting in a manner that has an effect substantially similar to the effect of
bullying, harassment, or discrimination.
F. “Bullying,” “Cyberbullying”, “Harassment,” and “Discrimination” (hereinafter
Referred to as bullying, as defined in Section A, for the purpose of this Policy) also
encompass, but are not limited to, unwanted harm towards a student or employee in
regard to their real or perceived: sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability
(physical, mental, or educational), marital status, socio-economic background, ancestry,
ethnicity, gender, gender identity or expression, linguistic preference, political beliefs,
sexual orientation, or social/family background or being viewed as different in its
education programs or admissions to education programs and therefore prohibits
bullying of any student or employee by any Board member, District employee,
consultant, contractor, agent, visitor, volunteer, student, or other person in the school or
outside the school at school-sponsored events, on school buses, and at training facilities
or training programs sponsored by the District. For Federal requirements when these
acts are against Federally identified protected categories, refer to Policy 4001.1.
G. “Accused” is defined as any District employee, consultant, contractor, agent, visitor,
volunteer, student, or other person in the school or outside the school at schoolsponsored
events, on school buses, and at training facilities or training programs
sponsored by the District who is reported to have committed an act of bullying, whether
formally or informally, verbally or in writing, of bullying.
H. “Complainant” is defined as any District employee, consultant, contractor, agent,
visitor, volunteer, student, or other person who formally or informally makes a report of
bullying, orally or in writing.
I. “Victim” is defined as any District employee, consultant, contractor, agent, visitor,
volunteer, student, or other person in the school or outside the school at school
sponsored events, on school buses and at training facilities or training programs
sponsored by the District, who is reported to have been the target of an act of bullying
during any educational program or activity conducted by SBBC.
II. Expectations: The Broward County School District expects students and employees to conduct themselves in keeping with their levels of development, maturity, and demonstrated capabilities with a proper regard for the rights and welfare of other students and school staff, the educational purpose underlying all school activities, and the care of school facilities and equipment.
A. The School District prohibits the bullying of any student or school employee:
1. during any educational program or activity conducted by SBBC;
2. during any school-related or school-sponsored program or activity or on a SBBC school bus;
3. through the use of any electronic device or data while on school grounds or on a SBBC school bus, computer software that is accessed through a computer, computer system, or computer network of the SBBC. The physical location or time of access of a computer-related incident cannot be raised as a defense in any disciplinary action initiated under this section.
4. through threats using the above to be carried out on school grounds. This includes threats made outside of school hours, which are intended to be carried out during any school-related or school-sponsored program or activity, or on a SBBC school bus.
5. while the District does not assume any liability for incidences that occur at a bus stop or en route to and from school, a student or witness may file a complaint
following the same procedures for bullying against a student and the school will
investigate and/or provide assistance and intervention as the principal/designee
deems appropriate, which may include the use of the School Resource Officer. The principal/designee shall use all District Reporting Systems to log all reports and interventions. However, if a student’s ability to receive an education or a school’s ability to provide an education is significantly impaired, as determined by the school district administration, disciplinary sanctions may be issued, see Section V. A. 1.a of this policy.
6. though an incident of alleged of bullying (cyberbullying or other) may occur off campus and may not entail threats of acts to occur during school hours, if a student’s ability to receive an education or a school’s ability to provide an education is significantly impaired, as determined by the school district administration, disciplinary sanctions may be issued.,
B. All administrators, faculty, and staff, in collaboration with parents, students, and
community members, will incorporate systemic methods for student and staff recognition
through positive reinforcement for good conduct, self discipline, good citizenship, and
academic success, as seen in the required school plan to address positive school culture
and behavior (aka Discipline Plan).
C. Student rights shall be explained as outlined in this policy and in the Student Code of
Conduct: Respect for Persons and Property.
D. Proper prevention and intervention steps shall be taken based on the level of severity of infraction as outlined in the Student Code of Conduct, the Discipline Matrix, and this
Policy.
III. Stakeholder Responsibilities
A. Student Support Services’ Office of Prevention: Student Support Services
professionals, in collaboration with other District departments, will collaborate with
school based staff members, families, and community stakeholders to utilize this Policy
and associated procedures to promote academic success, enhance resiliency, build
developmental assets, and promote protective factors within each school by ensuring that
each and every staff member and student is trained on violence prevention. These
trainings will work to create a climate within each school and within the District that
fosters the safety and respect of children and the belief that adults are there to protect and
help them. Additionally, students and staff (including, but not limited to, school based
employees, administrators, area/district personnel, counseling staff, bus drivers) will be
given the skills, training, and tools needed to create the foundation for preventing,
identifying, investigating, and intervening when issues of bullying arise.
B. Schools: By August 2011, each school principal shall designate a Prevention Liaison
who shall serve on existing teams that address acts of violence and school safety, e.g.,
threat assessment teams, SAFE Teams, and act as the Student Support Service’s Office of
Prevention contact. At minimum, this team should include staff members from
administration, guidance, and instruction. These designees are the key school based
personnel who will receive prevention training and assist in the dissemination of
prevention methods, intervention, and curriculum, for bullying and other issues that
impact the school culture and welfare of students and staff.
C. Community Resources: Student Support Services professionals, in collaboration with
other District departments, will train a wide range of community stakeholders, profit,
non-profit, School Resource Officers, and faith based agencies to provide the
dissemination and support of violence prevention curriculums to students, their families
and school staff. This collaboration will make effective use of available school district
and community resources while ensuring seamless service delivery in which each and
every school and student receives an equitable foundation of violence prevention.
D. Evidence-Based Interventions and Curriculum: Student Support Services’ Office of Prevention staff members will serve as the coordinators and trainers of prevention for all designated school staff and outside agencies/community partners. Those trained in
Prevention (e.g., Prevention Liaisons, Office of Prevention staff and Community
Partners) will then collaborate as “violence prevention partners” to implement the
evidence-based interventions and proven programs within each of their schools. Training
will focus on prevention and evidence-based programs.
E. Parent Participation and Partnership: Student Support Services professionals, in
collaboration with other District departments, will provide opportunities and encourage
parents to participate in prevention efforts with their children in meaningful and relevant
ways that address the academic, social, and health needs of their children. The District
will offer parents and parent associations’ trainings on violence prevention as well as
knowledge of and/or opportunity to participate in any violence prevention initiatives
currently taking place in their school via the District school website, Broward Education
Communication Network (BECON), open houses, and parent/school newsletters.
Training will provide resources and support for parents by linking them with internal
supports as well as referral to community-based resources as needed.
F. Evaluation of Service Effectiveness: Evaluations to determine the effectiveness and
efficiency of the services being provided will be conducted at least every three years and
shall include data-based outcomes.
G. Accountability: The Superintendent, other district administrators, the Area
Superintendents and their staffs, as well as school principals, share accountability for
implementation of these student support services consistent with the standards of this
policy. These administrators will take steps to assure that student support services are
fully integrated with their instructional components at each school and are pursued with
equal effort in policy and practice.
IV. Training for students, parents, teachers, area/district staff, school administrators, student support staff, counseling staff, bus drivers, School Resource Officers/Deputies,
contractors and school volunteers on identifying, preventing, and responding to bullying
will be conducted.
A. At the beginning of each school year, the school principal/designee and or appropriate
area/district administrator shall provide awareness of this policy, as well as the process
for reporting incidents, investigation and appeal, to students, school staff, parents, or
other persons responsible for the welfare of a pupil through appropriate references in the
Student Code of Conduct, Employee Handbooks, the school website, and/or through
other reasonable means.
V. Disciplinary sanctions (consequences) and due processes for a person who commits an act of bullying under this policy.
A. Concluding whether a particular action or incident constitutes a violation of this policy
requires a determination based on all of the facts and surrounding circumstances,
followed by the determination of disciplinary sanctions appropriate to the perpetrator’s
position within the District.
1. Consequences and appropriate interventions for students who commit acts of
bullying may range from positive behavioral interventions up to, but not limited to suspension, as outlined in the Student Code of Conduct, the Discipline Matrix, and this Policy.
a. All steps necessary to protect the victim from further violations of this policy will be taken, and may include, but are not limited to, assignment of the perpetrator to a different school from that were the offense occurred. Only the Superintendent/designee may make such a reassignment. In such cases of reassignment, transportation will be provided by the District.
2. Consequences and appropriate interventions for a school/district employee found to have committed an act of bullying will be instituted in accordance with District policies, procedures, and agreements (Policy 4.9, Employee Disciplinary Guidelines, Part I, Section b and Policy 2410, Workplace Violence, Rules) and the Education Professionals’ Contract Agreement, Broward Teachers Union (BTU). Additionally, egregious acts of bullying by certified educators may result in a sanction against an educator’s state issued certificate (Rule 6B-1.006 F.A.C.).
3. Consequences and appropriate intervention for a visitor, volunteer, or
parent/guardian found to have committed an act of bullying shall be determined by the school administrator after consideration of the nature and circumstances of the act, including reports to appropriate law enforcement officials.
4. These same actions will apply to persons, whether they are students, school
employees, parents/guardians, or visitors/volunteers/independent contractors, who
are found to have made wrongful and intentional accusations of another as a means of bullying.
VI. Reporting an act of bullying
A. At each school, the principal/designee is responsible for receiving oral or written
complaints alleging violations of this policy, as with all infractions from the Student
Code of Conduct.
B. Students may report complaints of bullying to any school district employee, faculty or
staff. All District employees, faculty and staff are required and must report, in writing,
any allegations of bullying or violations of this Policy involving students to the
principal/designee or appropriate area/district administrator. Failure to report will result
in action(s) or discipline, consistent with the collective bargaining agreement provisions,
up to and including termination of employment (SBBC Policy 2410, section 1). Any
District faculty or staff who suspects adult-on-adult bullying is strongly encouraged to
report any concerns.
C. Any other members of the school community who have credible information that an act of bullying has taken place may file a report of bullying, whether a victim or witness.
D. Any student (and/or the parent on that complainant's behalf if the complainant is a
minor) who believes he/she is a victim of bullying (or any individual, including any
student who has knowledge of any incident(s) involving bullying of students) is strongly
encouraged to report the incident(s) in writing to a school official. Complaints should be
filed as soon as possible after the alleged incident and noted on the specified data
system, but must be filed within ninety (90) school days after the alleged incident (i.e.,
within 90 school days of the last act of alleged bullying). Failure on the part of the
victim to initiate and/or follow up on the complaint within this period may result in the
complaint being deemed abandoned. For protected categories covered under Policy
4001.1, a different timeline may apply.
E. The principal of each school in the District shall establish, and prominently publicize to students, staff, volunteers, and parents, how a report of bullying may be filed and what
actions may be taken.
F. A school district employee, school volunteer, contractor, student, parent/guardian or
other persons who promptly reports in good faith an act of bullying to the appropriate
school official, and who makes this report in compliance with the procedures set forth in
this District Policy, is immune from a cause of action for damages arising out of the
reporting itself or any failure to remedy the reported incident. Submission of a good
faith complaint or report of bullying will not affect the complainant or reporter’s future
employment, grades, learning or working environment, or work assignments within the
SBBC.
G. Administrators/principal/designee(s) shall document in writing and/or via the specified data system all complaints regarding bullying, as with all infractions of the Code of Student Conduct, to ensure that problems are appropriately addressed in a timely
manner, whether the report is made verbally or in writing.
H. Anonymous reports may be made utilizing the Broward County Public Schools
Anonymous Bullying Report Form. This reporting form can be found on the School
District’s website (click on Special Investigative Unit; click
on report anonymous tips), at each school’s front office, or at each school’s single point
of entry Anonymous Reporting Box, or at each area/district/department site.
Anonymous reports may be delivered to the school administration’s front office, put in
the school’s Anonymous Reporting Box, or through the Special Investigative Unit
(herein after to be referred to as SIU) via their internet website
broward.k12.fl.us/siu/tips/ or Emergency/Silence Hurts Tipline at (754) 321-0911.
Anyone wishing to file a bullying report can also make a report via email to
school911@ or via text message by texting 'SBBC' [space], plus the
text message to CRIMES (274637). Administrators shall use the specified data system
to log all reports and interventions. Formal disciplinary action may not be based solely
on the basis of an anonymous report.
VII. Bullying Complaints and Resolution
A. The investigation of a reported act of bullying of a student, school-based employee,
parent/guardian or other persons providing service to the school is deemed to be a school-related activity and begins with a report of such an act.
B. The principal/designee and/or Investigative Designee shall document all complaints in
writing and/or through the appropriate data system to ensure that problems are addressed
in a timely manner. This process is to be followed with all anonymous complaints as
well. Although this Policy encourages students to use the formal written complaint
process, school officials "should investigate all complaints and reports of harassment,
whether or not the complaint is in writing," as stated by the Office for Civil Rights in
Protecting Students from Harassment and Hate Crime: A Guide for Schools, Part II
(1999).
C. If the complaint is about the principal or an area/district’s staff member’s direct
supervisor, then the Area Superintendent/Designee or appropriate district administrator
shall be asked to address the complaint.
D. The trained Investigative Designee(s) will make the determination if a reported act of
bullying or harassment falls within the scope of the District.
1. If it is within the scope of the District, move to Procedures for Investigating Bullying and/or Harassment as outlined below.
2. If it is outside the scope of the District, and determined an alleged criminal act, refer to appropriate law enforcement, provide any applicable interventions, and document according to Policy.
3. If it is outside the scope of the District, and determined not a criminal act, inform parents/guardians of all students involved, provide appropriate interventions and document according to Policy.
E. Informal Resolution - where the administrator, along with the alleged victim and the
accused/student, may agree to informally resolve the complaint. Documented interviews
of the victim, alleged perpetrator, and witnesses are conducted privately separately, and
are confidential. Each individual (victim, alleged perpetrator and witnesses) will be
interviewed separately, and at no time will the alleged perpetrator and victim be
interviewed together. Each party’s agreement to Informal Resolution must be in writing.
The incident and the resolution must be documented on the appropriate data system.
1. If a mutual resolution has not been achieved, a formal written appeal must be filed within five (5) work days after the informal meeting and submitted to the principal or appropriate area/district supervisor.
F. Formal Resolution - the alleged victim/complainant/student/employee or parent(s), on
behalf of the student, may file a written complaint with the principal/designee or
appropriate area/district administrator by utilizing the Broward County Public Schools
Bullying Complaint Report Form. Said form is available on the School District’s website
, at each school’s front office, or area/district/department site.
1. According to the level of infraction, parents will be promptly notified of any actions being taken to protect the victim via written notice, telephone or personal
conference; the frequency of notification will depend on the seriousness of the
bullying incident.
G. The resolution, all interviews and interventions that take place and the corresponding
dates shall be documented in writing and/or noted in the district specified data system.
VIII. Investigation requirements for reported acts of bullying under this policy
A. The procedures for investigating school-based bullying must include the
principal/designee and/or the Investigative Designee, in the case of student-to-student
bullying. The principal, Investigative Designee and Prevention Liaison shall be trained in
investigative procedures and interventions as outlined in this Policy. For incidents at the
area/district level, or for school-based adult-on-adult bullying, the appropriate
administrator will be responsible for the investigation as outlined in this policy and will
run concurrently and in addition, to all agreed upon procedures for staff discipline.
B. The investigator may not be the accused or the alleged victim.
C. The principal/designee or appropriate area/district administrator shall begin a thorough
investigation with the alleged victim and accused within two (2) school days of receiving
a notification of complaint. (The Florida Department of Education requires that school
administrators/designees provide immediate notification to the parents of both the victim
and the alleged perpetrator of an act of bullying or harassment.)
D. During the investigation, the principal/designee or appropriate area/district administrator may take any action necessary to protect the complainant, alleged victim, other students or employees consistent with the requirements of applicable regulations and statutes.
1. Documented interviews of the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, and witnesses are conducted privately, separately, and are confidential. Each individual (victim, alleged perpetrator, and witnesses) will be interviewed separately and at no time will the alleged perpetrator and victim to be interviewed together.
2. At no time during the investigation will the name of the complainant be revealed by the investigator.
3. In general, student complainants and/or alleged victims will continue attendance at the same school and pursue their studies as directed while the investigation is conducted and the complaint is pending resolution. Any legal order of a court will prevail.
4. When necessary to carry out the investigation or for other good reasons, and
consistent with federal and state privacy laws, the principal/designee or appropriate area/district administrator also may discuss the complaint with any school district employee, the parent of the alleged victim, the parent of the complainant or accused, if one or both is a minor (or has given consent or is an adult who has been determined to be incompetent or unable to give informed consent due to disability), and/or child protective agencies responsible for investigating child abuse.
5. During the investigation where an employee is the accused, the principal/designee or the appropriate area/district administrator may recommend to the Associate Superintendent of Human Resources/designee, any action necessary to protect the complainant, the alleged victim, or other students or employees, consistent with the requirements of applicable statutes, State Board of Education Rules, School Board Policies, and collective bargaining agreements.
E. Within ten (10) school days of the notification as to the filing of the complaint, there shall be a written decision by the Principal/Designee or appropriate area/district administrator regarding the completion and determination of the investigation. The principal/designee shall make a decision about the validity of the allegations in the complaint and about any corrective action, if applicable, consistent with the Discipline Matrix.
F. The Principal/Designee or appropriate area/district administrator will inform all relevant parties in writing of the decision and the right to appeal. A copy of the decision will be sent to the originating school and be noted in all relevant data tracking systems including, but not limited to the SESIR and the Statewide Report on School Safety and Discipline Data system.
G. If the accused is an employee, discipline may be taken, consistent with any applicable
collective bargaining agreement provisions, to resolve a complaint of bullying (Policy
4.9, Employee Disciplinary Guidelines). The supervisor/designee (e.g.,
principal/designee for school-based employees) of the employee shall discuss the
determination and any recommended corrective action with the Area Director, for schoolbased actions, or the appropriate area/district supervisor, for area/district actions, and the Associate Superintendent of Human Resources.
H. No retaliation of any kind is permitted in connection with an individual's having made a bullying complaint and if it occurs, it shall be deemed an additional act of bullying as
stated herein this Policy.
IX. Referral for Intervention
A. Referral of a student to the collaborative problem-solving team (or equivalent schoolbased team with a problem solving focus) for consideration of appropriate services is made through the school problem-solving process by school personnel or parent to the
principal/designee. Parent notification is required. When such a report of formal
discipline or formal complaint is made, the principal/designee shall refer the student(s) to
the collaborative problem-solving team for determination of need for counseling support
and interventions.
B. Referral of school or area/district personnel to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for consideration of appropriate services will be made by the administrator.
C. School-based intervention and assistance will be determined by the collaborative
problem-solving team and may include, but is not limited to:
1. counseling and support to address the needs of the victims of bullying.
2. counseling interventions to address the behavior of the students who bully (e.g.,
empathy training, anger management).
3. intervention which includes assistance and support provided to parents.
4. analysis and evaluation of school culture with resulting recommendations for
interventions aimed at increasing peer ownership and support.
D. Self referral for informal consultation: District staff, students or parents may request
informal consultation with school staff (e.g., school social worker, school counselor,
school psychologist, Prevention Liaison, EAP, etc.) to determine the severity of concern
and appropriate steps to address the concern of bullying (the involved students’ parents
may be included) orally or in writing to the principal/designee.
E. Any investigations and interventions shall be recorded on the District specified data
system.
X. Incident reporting requirements
A. The procedure for including incidents of bullying in the school’s report of safety and
discipline data is required under F.S. 1006.09(6). The report must include each incident
of bullying and the resulting consequences, including discipline, interventions and
referrals. In a separate section, the report must include each reported incident of bullying
or harassment that does not meet the criteria of a prohibited act under this policy, with
recommendations regarding said incident.
B. The School District will utilize Florida’s School Environmental Safety Incident
Reporting (SESIR) Statewide Report on School Safety and Discipline Data, which
includes bullying/harassment in its codes.
C. Discipline, referral data, investigations, interventions, and actions of discipline shall be recorded on the specified data system, as with other infractions from the Code of Student Conduct.
XI. Process for referral for external investigation
A. If the act is outside the scope of the District, and determined a criminal act, referral to
appropriate law enforcement shall be made immediately, the parent will be notified, and
the referral documented by the principal/designee in the specified data system.
B. While the District does not assume any liability for incidences that must be referred for external investigation, it encourages the provision of assistance and intervention as the principal/designee deems appropriate, including the use of the School Resource Officer and other personnel. The principal/designee shall use District Reporting Systems to log all reports and interventions.
XII. Appeals process
A. Appeal procedure for bullying by a student will follow the steps outlined in the Code of Student Conduct – “Right to Appeal Unfair Penalties.”
B. Appeal procedure for an accused/employee:
1. If the accused/employee wishes to appeal the action taken in resolution of the
complaint, such appeal shall be filed either in accordance with SBBC Board Policy 4015 or pursuant to the relevant collective bargaining agreement.
2. For those employees not in a bargaining unit, the appeal shall be filed in accordance with SBBC Policy 4015. In reaching a decision about the complaint, the following should be taken into account:
a) SBBC Policy 4.9, Employee Disciplinary Guidelines; and
b) Case law, state and federal laws and regulations, and the Board's Policies prohibiting bullying and discrimination, including Policy 4001.1.
XIII. Confidentiality
A. To the greatest extent possible, all complaints will be treated as confidential and in
accordance with SBBC Policy 5100.1, F.S. § 1002.22(3)(d); the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA"); the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act (“HIPAA”) and any other applicable law, such as F.S. § 119.07(1); 1012.31(3)(a); or
1012.796(1)(c).
B. Limited disclosure may be necessary to complete a thorough investigation as described above. The District's obligation to investigate and take corrective action may supersede an individual's right to privacy.
C. The complainant's identity shall be protected, but absolute confidentiality cannot be
guaranteed.
D. The identity of the victim of the reported act shall be protected to the extent possible.
XIV. Retaliation Prohibited
A. Retaliation includes, but is not limited to, any form of intimidation, reprisal or harassment in connection with filing a complaint or assisting with an investigation under this Policy.
B. Retaliatory or intimidating conduct against any individual who has made a bullying
complaint or any individual who has testified, assisted, or participated, in any manner, in
an investigation is specifically prohibited and as detailed in this Policy shall be treated as
another incidence of bullying.
XV. Additional Referral
In all cases, the District reserves the right to refer the results of its own investigation to the
State Attorney for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida for possible criminal charges,
whether or not the District takes any other action.
XVI. Constitutional Safeguard
This policy does not imply to prohibit expressive activity protected by the First Amendment
of the United State Constitution or Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution.
XVII. Preclusion
This policy should not be interpreted as to prevent a victim or accused from seeking redress
under any other available law either civil or criminal.
XVIII. Severability
If a provision of this policy is or becomes illegal, invalid or unenforceable in any jurisdiction,
that shall not affect the validity or enforceability in that jurisdiction of any other provision of
this policy.
• AUTHORITY: F.S. 1001.41(1), (2) AND (5)
• LAWS IMPLEMENTED: F.S. 1006.147
• POLICY ADOPTED: 7/22/08, 6/15/10
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- hyland leg cramps pulled off the market
- off the menu starbucks drinks
- starbucks off the menu drinks
- how to get into the stock market
- sign into to office 365
- photosynthesis when substituted into the equation
- the office of management and budget
- and the day bleeds into nightfall
- how to turn off the windows key
- and the day bleeds into nightfall song
- storms coming off the coast of africa
- list the equipment required to measure the following and name the type of sampli