Liability in Workplace Essay Sample

1. Teddy’s Supplies’ CEO has asked you to rede him on the facts of the instance. and your sentiment of their possible liability. He wants to settle the instance. Write a memo to him which states your position of whether the company is exposed to liability on all issues you feel are in drama. Include in your memo any Torahs which apply and any precedential instances either for or against Teddy’s instance which impact liability. Include in the memo your suggested “offer of settlement” to Virginia. Back up your offer utilizing your analysis of the instance against Teddy’s

Dear Mr. Moore.

After an independent survey and reappraisal of this instance. it is my judgement that Teddy’s Supplies is so apt for workplace and sexual torment against Virginia Pollard. A careful reappraisal of the instance besides indicates that the complainant. Ms. Pollard. was placed in a “hostile” environment under the supervising of Steve King. While it is non illegal for one adult female to work among a group of work forces. careful judgement should be used by the employer in finding if the work environment is suited for males and females. As a general regulation. it is non good pattern to hold one female working with all male co-workers.

First of all. I will specify these three types of sexual torment as stated by: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. strategichr. com/shrsweb2/harassment_01. shtml

a ) “Workplace torment is any unwelcome or unwanted behavior that denigrates or shows ill will or an antipathy toward another individual on the footing of any characteristic protected by jurisprudence. which includes an individual’s race. colour. gender. cultural or national beginning. age. faith. disablement. matrimonial position. sexual orientation. gender individuality. or other personal feature protected by jurisprudence. A behavior is unwelcome if the employee did non beg. incite or arouse it. and the employee regarded the behavior as unwanted or offensive” .

Pollard was invariably being harassed by her six male co-workers as she was the victim of buffooneries perpetrated by them that ranged from taping her desk shortss shut. locking her out of the guard hovel and hence impeding her from executing her occupation due to the fact she was responsible for watching the warehouse stock list. make fulling the guard hovel with rubbish. and seting her into unneeded hazard of injury by endorsing a forklift up to the guard hovel door and doing it backlash into her ear. Ms. Pollard could hold sustained serious hurts if the forklift driver had by chance backed through the guard hovel and as a consequence struck her. Standard forklifts weigh three dozenss and could easy run through the guard hovel. Most forklifts run off of propane or butane and emit strong exhausts when running. The exhausts from the forklift after backlashing could do physical harm to person with asthma and fistula jobs. The backfiring of the fumes is instead loud. and multiple happenings instigated by the forklift driver of pin downing Pollard in the guard hovel to hear the blast in a little room could do irreparable harm to Pollard’s tympanums.

B ) “Sexual torment is a signifier of sex favoritism that involves unwanted or unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature. This applies to harassment by a individual against another individual of the opposite sex every bit good as torment by a individual against another individual of the same sex. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act defines sexual torment as “harassment based on sex or of a sexual nature ; gender torment and torment based on gestation. childbearing. or related medical conditions. ” and many signifiers of violative behaviour. ”

In one peculiar incident. Ms. Pollard was taunted by her coworkers and one of Teddy’s drivers. The driver was sitting in her chair. and she asked him to acquire up. When he refused. she tried to forcibly force him out of the chair ; and as she was making this he grabbed her. turned her over his articulatio genus. and so spanked her. This is a blazing signifier of sexual torment due to the fact that Ms. Pollard in no manner showed any marks of sexual arousement toward the driver that would promote and/or provoke him into paddling her.

degree Celsius ) “Hostile environment” torment occurs when an employee is subjected to unwelcome or unwanted sexual behavior that is sufficiently permeant or terrible to change the footings or conditions of the employee’s employment. such behavior unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work public presentation or creates an opprobrious. intimidating. violative or hostile work environment. A director. supervisor. colleague. or even a non-employee such as a seller. client or 3rd party can make a hostile environment. ”

Steve King. Pollard’s supervisor in the warehouse. and his workers created a hostile environment for her. In August of 2008. King and the other warehouse workers put a mark on a truck that read “HARDHAT REQUIRED/BRA OPTIONAL. ” King and another employee called Pollard over to look at the mark and tried to incite her into making as the mark said. She refused and tried to walk off. and as she did. Steve King told her that he wouldn’t study her to direction if she went along with their petition. These words motivated her to draw up the dorsum of her shirt and expose her bandeau.

In decision. I recommend that Teddy’s Supplies offer Virginia Pollard the place that she was terminated from with confidence that she will non be assaulted in any mode while on the occupation. Pollard performs her occupation good when fortunes allow. She would be an plus to the company in her current place provided that she is non harassed. Furthermore. it is my recommendation that Steve King be disciplined for this act and as a consequence be demoted from his supervisor place with no opportunity of acquiring another occupation of this type while working for Teddy’s Supplies. A written warning should be topographic point in his forces file saying the grounds for this disciplinary action. The offer of colony to Pollard should include lost rewards from the twenty-four hours she was terminated to the twenty-four hours that she is reinstated.

Harmonizing to the EEOC web site. Teddy’s could be capable to liability. “An employer is ever apt for torment by a supervisor on a forbidden footing that culminates in a touchable employment action. No affirmatory defence is available in such instances. The Supreme Court recognized that this consequence is appropriate because an employer acts through its supervisors. and a supervisor’s project of a touchable employment action constitutes an act of the employer. ”

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. eeoc. gov/policy/docs/harassment. hypertext markup language

2. The Circuit Court overturned the determination of the NJ Human Rights Commission which had found that Pollard was the victim of Sexual Harassment and disparate intervention. Please answer these inquiries: A. Define sexual torment. including both quid pro quo and hostile environment torment. Which type ( s ) do you experience Pollard was a victim of ( if either. ) Provide jurisprudence or a instance to back up your place. If you feel Pollard was non a victim of torment in this instance. explicate why you feel that manner. and supply jurisprudence or a instance to back up your place. ( 10 points ) “Quid pro quo” ( this for that ) torment occurs when an employee is offered some occupation profit such as publicity. wage rise. etc. . in return for sexual favours or is subjected to some inauspicious action because of a refusal to subject to a petition for sexual favours. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. strategichr. com/shrsweb2/harassment_01. shtml

“Hostile environment” torment occurs when an employee is subjected to unwelcome or unwanted sexual behavior that is sufficiently permeant or terrible to change the footings or conditions of the employee’s employment. such behavior unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work public presentation or creates an opprobrious. intimidating. violative or hostile work environment. A director. supervisor. colleague. or even a non-employee such as a seller. client or 3rd party can make a hostile environment. The EEOC has established the undermentioned factors to find whether a hostile work environment has been created: * Whether the behavior was unwelcome or unwanted ;

* Whether the behavior was verbal or physical. or both ;
* Whether the behavior was a erstwhile happening or was repeated ( e. g. . uninterrupted period of torment ) ;
* Whether the behavior was hostile and violative ;
* Whether others joined in commiting the torment ; and
* Whether the torment was directed at more than one person. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. strategichr. com/shrsweb2/harassment_01. shtml

It is my belief that Pollard was a victim of hostile environment torment. Pollard was continuously subjected to buffooneries that were directed entirely for her. These buffooneries interfered with her occupation public presentation and caused her undue emphasis. All of these factors indicate that she was the victim of “hostile environment” torment. B. Name an appellant tribunal instance where an employer was found apt for either quid pro quo or hostile environment sexual torment. Describe the facts of the instance. and the determination the tribunal came to in the instance. Explain whether you think that instance applies to Pollard’s instance ( why or why non ) and whether you would desire to utilize this instance in Teddy’s favour or whether Pollard may utilize it in her favour. Include the commendation to the instance and a nexus to it online. ( 10 points ) hypertext transfer protocol: //www3. uakron. edu/lawrev/robert1. hypertext markup language

In Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards. Inc. . a shipyard company employed a female welder who was continually subjected to nude and partly bare images posted by her male colleagues. 73 The work forces posted these images non merely in common countries. but besides in topographic points where the victim would hold to meet them. including her tool box. 74 The work forces referred to the victim as “baby. ” “sugar. ” “momma. ” and “dear. ”75 In add-on. the work forces wrote obscene graffito directed at the victim all over the works. 76 The work forces besides made legion implicative and violative comments to the victim refering her organic structure and the images posted on the walls. 77 The victim complained about this ambiance of torment on a figure of occasions. but the company’s supervisory forces provided small or no aid. 78 The tribunal found this behavior violated Title VII because the complainant belonged to a protected class. was capable to unwelcome sexual torment. the torment was based on sex. it affected a term or status of her employment. and the employer knew or should hold known about the torment and failed to take remedial action.

I think that Virginia Pollard could cite this instance because her simulation was similar but non as extended. Steve King. a warehouse supervisor of Teddy’s Supplies. participated in the sing on the truck buffoonery and even coaxed her into demoing her bandeau by stating her that he wouldn’t say anything to direction if she took off her bandeau. Alternatively. Pollard walked off and so revealed the rear of her bandeau. Pollard was continually harassed by her six male co-workers who played buffooneries on her every twenty-four hours ; and therefore interfering with her occupation public presentation in several cases by pin downing her in the guard hovel and coercing her to hear the blowback of a forklift. C. Do you agree that Pollard was disparately treated? Why or why non? In your reply. define disparate intervention. ( 10 points. ) Disparate intervention is knowing favoritism. Where employment determinations are motivated by race. colour. sex. etc. . disparate intervention exists. The cardinal component needed to demo disparate intervention is that members of a protected group are treated otherwise from non-members. A “but for” trial is frequently applied. “But for” rank in a protected group. the employee would non hold been the object of the inauspicious employment action. With disparate intervention. the motivation factor behind the employment action is the employee’s rank in the protected group. hypertext transfer protocol: //library. findlaw. com/2000/Aug/1/130670. hypertext markup language

I believe that disparate intervention was involved in the Pollard instance. Pollard wouldn’t have been treated this manner if she hadn’t been an lone female. In this state of affairs. she had no defence against the work forces other registering a ailment and/or advising her supervisor. The mark on a truck buffoonery that read “HARDHAT REQUIRED/BRA OPTIONAL” reasonably much singles Pollard out as being mistreated due to her gender. She one time complained to her supervisor. and her told her to “grow some balls and acquire over herself” ; clearly a instance of disparate intervention and sexual torment. D. Does the being of a sexual torment policy provide a defence to Teddy’s in this instance? Why or why non? ( Include the name and commendation of at least two federal or province sexual torment instance ( s ) which provide precedential support to your defence statement. ) ( 10 points. ) No. I don’t believe there is an bing a instance that would supply a defence to Teddy’s in this instance.

The grounds presented against Teddy’s Supplies is distinct. and the fortunes involved are in misdemeanor of Title VII. Steve King. one of Teddy’s supervisors. was cognizant of the buffooneries that Pollard’s six male co-workers were playing on her. None of these buffooneries and the behavior of her male co-workers was welcomed by Pollard. and these actions were terrible plenty “to alter the conditions of [ the victim’s ] employment and make an opprobrious working environment. ”60 In 1986. the U. S. Supreme Court. in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson. 57 ( hypertext transfer protocol: //www. jurisprudence. Cornell. edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0477_0057_ZS. hypertext markup language ) endorsed the impression of a hostile work environment. 58 Puting strong accent on EEOC guidelines. the Court held such sexual misconduct constitutes prohibited sexual torment. even if it is non linked straight to the grant or denial of an economic British pound pro quo. where “such behavior has the intent or consequence of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work public presentation or making an intimidating. hostile. or violative working environment. ”59 This determination set the phase for a broader definition of sexual torment. It besides gave rise to a argument over two related issues: What grade of maltreatment is needed to represent ill will that interferes unreasonably with a victim’s work public presentation. and what is the nature and extent of an employer’s liability for a hostile work environment.

What Is a Hostile Work Environment?
As portion of its determination in Meritor. the Supreme Court stated that a hostile work environment constitutes evidences for an action merely when the behavior is unwelcome. based on sex. and terrible or permeant adequate “to alter the conditions of [ the victim’s ] employment and make an opprobrious working environment. ”60 This standard raises legion inquiries. What is unwelcome? When is behavior based on sex? Are employees allowed to chat up on the occupation any longer? Can they state indelicate gags? What happens when person gets offended? Who decides what is appropriate. and what is non? Should employees be required to digest some minimum degree of violative sexual behaviour within the workplace? The EEOC itself has stated. “Title VII does non forbid all behavior of a sexual nature in the workplace. ”61 The line is drawn between acceptable sexual behavior and sexual torment where the behavior becomes unwelcome.

However. as the tribunals continue to cope with the definition of unwelcome sexual behavior. their determinations have non followed a predictable form. Nonetheless. the tribunals now grant alleviation for sexual torment far more frequently than they did ab initio. Today. tribunals will more likely find an illegal hostile environment nowadays when the workplace includes sexual propositions. erotica. highly coarse linguistic communication. sexual touching. degrading remarks. or abashing inquiries or gags. 64 The undermentioned instances illustrate behavior that creates a hostile work environment. ( 1 ) In Hall v. Gus Construction Co. . a building company hired three adult females to work as “flag persons” or traffic accountants at route building sites. 65 Male colleagues instantly and continually subjected the adult females to hideous verbal sexual maltreatment. One of the three adult females developed a skin reaction to the Sun and the work forces nicknamed her “Herpes. ”

When the adult females returned to their auto after work one twenty-four hours. they found lewdnesss written in the dust on their auto. 67 Male colleagues continuously asked the adult female if they wanted to prosecute in sexual intercourse or unwritten sex. 68 In add-on to the verbal maltreatment. the adult females were invariably subjected to violative and unwelcome physical contact. On one juncture. the work forces held up one of the female employees so that the driver of a truck could touch her. 69 The work forces subjected all three adult female to other types of maltreatment. including “mooning” them. demoing them adult images. and urinating in their H2O bottles and car gas armored combat vehicles. 70 The company’s supervisor was good cognizant of all of these activities. 71 The tribunal found this behavior violated Title VII because it was unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature. even though it did non incorporate “explicit sexual overtones. ”72 ( 2 ) In Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards. Inc. . a shipyard company employed a female welder who was continually subjected to nude and partly bare images posted by her male colleagues.

The work forces posted these images non merely in common countries. but besides in topographic points where the victim would hold to meet them. including her tool box. 74 The work forces referred to the victim as “baby. ” “sugar. ” “momma. ” and “dear. ”75 In add-on. the work forces wrote obscene graffito directed at the victim all over the works. 76 The work forces besides made legion implicative and violative comments to the victim refering her organic structure and the images posted on the walls. 77 The victim complained about this ambiance of torment on a figure of occasions. but the company’s supervisory forces provided small or no aid. 78 The tribunal found this behavior violated Title VII because the complainant belonged to a protected class. was capable to unwelcome sexual torment. the torment was based on sex. it affected a term or status of her employment. and the employer knew or should hold known about the torment and failed to take remedial action. 79 3 ) In Waltman v. International Paper Co. . the torment began when a colleague broadcast over the company’s public reference system obscenities about the female victim. who so received over 30 adult notes in her cabinet.

The work forces covered the walls of the installation and the lift with adult images and petroleum comments refering the victim. 81 In add-on. one of the victim’s supervisors told her that she should hold sex with a certain colleague ; he besides physically accosted her. 82 Another employee told the victim that “he would cut off her left chest and jostle it down her pharynx. ”On another juncture. this same employee held the victim “over a stairwell. more than 30 pess from the floor. ” Other male employees besides physically grabbed and pinched the victim.

The tribunal found this behavior stated a claim of hostile environment favoritism under Title VII. because employees touched her in a sexual mode. directed sexual remarks toward her. and continued to compose sexual graffito hroughout the workplace. 85 Even though these illustrations involved bluish collar workers. the job of sexual torment permeates all concerns and reaches upper direction. 86 No company or supervisor can providentially disregard the job. Another issue refering hostile environment instances is whether a victim may merely retrieve for sexual torment aimed at the victim. or whether she may mention illustrations of sex-based behavior directed at other employees to set up her leading facie instance. A figure of tribunals have held that incidents affecting employees other than the victim are relevant in set uping a by and large hostile work environment. 87 hypertext transfer protocol: //www3. uakron. edu/lawrev/robert1. hypertext markup language

3. The CEO asks you to reexamine the sexual torment policy presently in topographic point. which Virginia signed. He wants you to supply him with suggestions for alteration to it. Review the policy and give three recommendations for alterations. sweetenings and thoughts for doing the policy stronger. Include your grounds for these suggestions. If you find information online for doing these alterations. include commendations and/or links to that information. Explain how your suggestions may hold protected Teddy’s in this instance. Support these recommendations with current instance jurisprudence. ( Points: 20 )

1. It is my professional sentiment that the sexual torment signifier of Steve’s Supplies should hold a more concise range of policy that goes into item about company policy refering sexual torment.

Steve’s Supplies current Scope of Policy on the sexual torment signifier reads. “This policy prohibits any illegal favoritism or torment of any employee by another employee. colleague. supervisor. or seller. All employees are entitled to a torment and favoritism free environment. The company has a “zero-tolerance” policy with regard to torment or favoritism. A safe work environment is the end of Teddy’s Supplies. ”

The undermentioned sexual torment signifier is much more explanatory and leaves small room for miscomprehension. “The Company prohibits sexual torment of its employees and appliers for employment by any employee. non-employee or applicant. Such behavior may ensue in disciplinary action up to and including discharge. This policy covers all employees. The Company will non digest. condone or let sexual torment. whether engaged in by fellow employees. supervisors. associates. clients or other non-employees who conduct concern with the Company. ”

“Sexual torment is any behaviour that includes unwelcome sexual progresss and other verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature when:

• entry to. or rejection of. such behavior is used as the footing for publicities or other employment determinations ;

• the behavior unreasonably interferes with an individual’s occupation public presentation or creates an intimidating. hostile or violative work environment. ”

“No director or supervisor shall endanger or connote that an employee’s refusal to subject to sexual progresss will adversely impact that person’s employment. compensation. promotion. assigned responsibilities. or any other term or status of employment or calling development. Sexual joking. obscene images and any behavior that tends to do employees of one gender “sex objects” are prohibited. ” .

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. elinfonet. com/pickedpol/144. hypertext markup language

This sort of introductory statement will assist to put the precedency for how employee behavior sing sexual torment is handled by Teddy’s Supplies. A concise yet easy apprehensible definition of sexual torment will assist to protect Teddy’s from sexual torment instances that could be avoided through employer subject before acquiring into tribunal. Teddy’s Supplies should hold fired their supervisor. Steve King. for leting his workers to play buffooneries affecting sexual joking and obscene marks. If this had occurred. it might hold been possible to come to a satisfactory understanding between the employer and employee before the instance made it to tribunal. Steve King clearly violated sexual torment processs when he told Pollard that he would do no ailments to direction if she took off her bandeau. These sort of lewd remarks are purely against any sexual torment policies as set Forth by the federal authorities.

2. It is my sentiment that the sexual torment policy of Teddy’s Supplies needs some alterations that will assist to protect the company every bit good as its employees. I have included some recommendations and suggestions for heightening the current policy.

“Employees who have ailments of sexual torment should ( and are encouraged to ) study such ailments to their supervisor. If this individual is the cause of the piquing behavior. the employee may describe this affair straight to [ specify assorted functionaries. ( e. g. . Director of Human Resources. designated Vice Presidents. President. etc. ] . Your ailment will be quickly and exhaustively investigated. Confidentiality of studies and probes of sexual torment will be maintained to the greatest extent possible. Any director. supervisor. or employee who. after appropriate probe. is found to hold engaged in sexual torment of another employee or coach will be capable to disciplinary action. up to and including discharge. ”

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. elinfonet. com/pickedpol/144. hypertext markup language

Duty and Coverage Structure:
In the event that the employee can non register a ailment on the on-line web site. so the employee ( s ) are obligated to first name the proficient support telephone hotline figure at the underside of the sexual torment signifier. This figure will let the employee to speak with a aid desk operator who can reassign him/her to the appropriate technician for aid. In the event that the job can’t be resolved on a timely footing. the technician will give the employee a ticket no. and an approximative clip to seek to register the online ailment once more. In this state of affairs. the employee is encouraged to instantly describe the ailment to the Director of Human Resources. Vice President of Operations. the CEO. or any forces in the office of Human Resources. Failure to make so will ensue in non supplying the employee ( s ) with any protection under the jurisprudence. This alteration will assist to protect the employer in instances where proper coverage processs are non adhered to by the employee ( plaintiff ) .

3. The current sexual torment signifier of Teddy’s Supplies needs a Policy Commentary Section that maintains strong policy forbiding sexual torment.

“It is imperative that employers set up and keep a strong policy forbiding sexual torment. Under the recent United States Supreme Court determinations in Burlington Industries. Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton. ( hypertext transfer protocol: //caselaw. LP. findlaw. com/scripts/getcase. pl? court=US & A ; vol=524 & A ; invol=775 ) an employer may successfully support against a supervisor’s sexual torment if it can show that:

( I ) it exercised sensible attention to forestall and quickly correct the harassing behavior ; and

( two ) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or disciplinary chances.

Obviously. to set up the 2nd prong of the defence. the employer must turn out that the kicking employee knew of preventive or disciplinary chances. such as a ailment process contained in anti-harassment policy. Generally. the employee manual is the chief vehicle by which the employer disseminates its anti-harassment policy. and. hence. an employee manual that does non incorporate a sexual torment policy does an employer a ill service. ”

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. elinfonet. com/pickedpol/144. hypertext markup language

There should be specific processs in topographic point that employees should be cognizant of at the clip of hire. Specific processs are referred to as a subdivision in the employee enchiridion that provides a strong statement sing sexual torment processs that will non be tolerated in any form. signifier. or manner. This manual. along with a sexual torment policy. will provided to the employee on the same twenty-four hours of hire. A signifier will provided to the employee necessitating his/her signature saying familiarisation with all employer regulations and ordinances.

4. How would Pollard’s instance be impacted if her replacing had been a female? Would her instance be different? Would her amendss be different? Explain your reply. ( Points: 10 )

If Pollard had been replaced by a female. I think she would hold a good opportunity of actioning Teddy’s supplies for a significant sum of money. The fact that a adult female was hired as a replacing would reasonably much reveal to the tribunal that Pollard may hold been the victim of sexual torment as a method of doing her quit her occupation. I think the tribunals would hold ruled that Teddy’s Supplies was so guilty of sexual and hostile environment torment. With this instance scenario. the instance would hold probably ne’er made it to the entreaties procedure due to the implicit in fortunes involved. I think that in this state of affairs Pollard would be awarded back rewards and punitory amendss.