You Decide Week 6

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 690
  • Published : January 20, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
1.| Question :| Teddy's Supplies' CEO has asked you to advise him on the facts of the case and your opinion of their potential liability. Write a memo to him that states your view of whether the company is exposed to liability on all issues you feel are in play. Include in your memo any laws that apply and any precedent cases either for or against Teddy's case that impact liability. Include your opinion of the "worst case" of damages the company may have to pay to Virginia.|

| Student Answer:| | Mr. Moore, As per your request as to whether Teddy’s Supplies is potentially liable for the harassment charges the answer is “Yes”. Your company is liable for the conduct of your employees. You have a sexual harassment policy in place that was violated. Your employees created a hostile work environment that is clearly stated that “zero-tolerance” will be in place to keep a safe work environment. You also stated in your policy that harassing behavior is prohibited and banned. Although Ms. Pollard never filed a complaint but did mention she was being picked on. Mr. King was way out of line posting a sign that reads “HARDHAT REQUIRED/BRA OPTIONAL”. This type of behavior from management calls for serious reprimanding. Mr. King was quoted telling Ms. Pollard that she needs to “grow some balls” and “get over herself” when she told Mr. King she felt she was being picked on. These are all very serious allegations. Not to mention the truck incident or the slapping her backside incident. You have some stiff charges against the company. The worst case scenario for damages would be monetary and an apology from everyone who offended Ms. Pollard. Ms. Pollard’s attorneys could ask for amounts in the thousands. At least $100,000.00 in damages. | |

| Comments:| Your memo went into some detail regarding the liability of Teddy's Phyllis. Kudos! However, a full credit response would include case law as required in the question to support your opinion. |


2.| Question :| The NJ Human Rights commission found that Pollard was the victim of sexual harassment and disparate treatment. Please answer these questions: a. Provide the most current definition of "sexual harassment," including a definition of quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment. Name an appellate court case in which an employer was found liable for either quid pro quo or hostile environment sexual harassment. Describe the facts of the case and the decision the court came to in the case. Include the citation to the case and a link to it online. Would the case apply to Pollard's case? Why or why not? Would you want to use this case in Teddy's favor or Pollard’s favor? (10 points)b. Explain which form of sexual harassment you suspect the NJ Human Rights commission found Virginia had been a victim of and why you feel that is the case. Provide law or a case to support your position. If you feel Pollard was not a victim of harassment in this case, explain why you feel that way, and provide law or a case to support your position. (10 points)c. Explain what defenses to sexual harassment Teddy's had in this case. (Include the name and citation of at least two federal or state sexual harassment cases that provide precedent support to your defense statement.) (10 points)d. What is disparate treatment and why do you think the Human Rights commission found it had occurred? Do you agree with this decision? (10 points)|

| Student Answer:| | a. Sexual Harassment is when a person or a group of people subject a person to unwanted sexual conduct. This type of conduct can also be referred to a hostile environment created by unwanted sexual conduct or sexual demands. Sexual Harassment quid pro quo is when an employee is being force to have a sexual relationship with his or her boss to keep their job, get a promotion or get a raise. Harassment in the work place creates a hostile environment which stems from unwanted invitations, not allowing someone...
tracking img