Independent HR Consultants
To: Ted Moore, CEO and Founder Teddy’s Supplies
CC: Tonya Morgan, VP of Operations
From: Consulting Associate
Date: 6/17/2012
Re: Analysis of sexual discrimination case (Virginia Pollard)
Introduction

Thank you for allowing me to work with your company. As requested, I have evaluated the information about the case of sexual discrimination that involves Virginia Pollard. I have taken a look at the incidents that led up to this case of sexual discrimination and my findings indicate that there have been too many occurrences of sexual discrimination towards Ms. Pollard, which in turn created a hostile work environment. This leads me to believe that Teddy’s Supplies is liable for sexual and workplace harassment.

Key points
• Virginia Pollard was sexually discriminated against.
• Teddy’s Supplies is liable for sexual and workplace harassment against Ms. Pollard.
• All personnel that are involved in this case must be disciplined. This should be in the form of suspension without pay, transfer or termination.
• Guidelines must be implemented to ensure that this type of incident does not occur again; as it hinders the morale and creates an uncomfortable, hostile work environment.
Analysis
Data: I will be using the statement of employees, the data from the anonymous complaint, statements from all parties involved. My primary source of data is the findings from the investigation.
Assumptions: I will be making the assumptions that the parties involved in this case are possible repeat offenders, who have not been educated about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Findings
I have no doubt that Virginia Pollard filed her case of sexual discrimination because she was terminated from her job; it is my assessment that plaintiff was not a willing participant. She seemed to have tolerated the harassment to ensure that he supervisor Mr. King will not report her to management hence, ensuring her job security. My findings do not indicate a willing participant who turned sour once everything that was happening at the warehouse came to light. I also think that no one should have to work and experience the type harassment that Ms. Pollard had to endure.

I am under the impression that Ms. Pollard was transferred to the guard duty as a form of punishment. I do not agree with this type of treatment since this was her first warning, if she had to be warned more than once then the transfer would have been justified. It seemed too drastic of a move for an initial warning. Teddy’s Supplies exercised poor judgment by placing Ms. Pollard on guard duty as the only female among six (6) men. While I can find no information that indicates that any laws were broken by having Ms. Pollard as the sole female working among a group of men, no consideration was given to Ms. Pollard’s well being and the environment in which she was placed. This moved displayed poor judgment as well as a lack of good business practice and etiquette.

Under Title VII Ms. Pollard is a victim of Hostile Work Environment Harassment. In this case the conduct against Ms. Pollard was a combination of verbal and physical, which according to the case occurred on a frequent basis and was patently offensive. The investigation also proved that Ms. Pollard was harassed by both coworkers under the supervision of Mr. King who also took part in the harassment. The investigations showed that she was a victim of workplace sexual harassment, which is evident by all the pranks that were played on her by her male coworkers.

The case list a number of pranks that the plaintiff was subjected to, these pranks includes having her coworkers taped her drawers shut, locked her out of the guard shack she sat in to watch the inventory, filled the guard shack with trash, this showed blatant disrespect to Ms. Pollard not to mention that trash can spread germs. When the forklift was backed up to the door and made it backfire in her ear there are many injuries that she could have sustained including but not limited permanent hearing loss. Also the possibility exists that the driver could have lost control of the forklift and the plaintiff could have been seriously injured or killed. One day, a Teddy delivery driver sat in Pollard's chair and, when she tried to push him out of it, he bent her over his lap and spanked her. My evaluation shows me that because Mr. King was ineffective in performing his job as a supervisor the male employees have no fear of being disciplined about their behavior.

These incidents of harassment created an atmosphere that made it difficult for the plaintiff to perform her required tasks. The driver that placed her over his lap and then proceeded to spank her showed a form of sexual harassment that was unwelcomed conduct of a sexual nature. I am of the opinion that Ms. Pollard was a victim of a hostile work environment because sadly, the pranks occurred on a continual basis and they were geared only towards her. Workings in such environments make it almost impossible to work effectively and must have been a stressor.

No employee, regardless of gender should be subjected to the verbal and physical harassment of a sexual nature, unwelcomed sexual advances of requests for favors of a sexual nature. The plaintiff should have informed her coworkers that she was not comfortable with their unwelcomed advances, and that it must come to an end. The plaintiff also used poor judgment by not putting more effort into filing a complaint.

Conclusion
I recommend that Ms. Pollard be reinstated to her previous job from which she was terminated. Due to the nature of this case it is my recommendation that each of her six (6) male coworkers be formally disciplined. Not only should the plaintiff be awarded lost wages from the time she was terminated to reinstate; she should also be awarded punitive damages. This decision is based on the fact that an employer is liable for harassment by a supervisor; Teddy’s supplies could be subjected to liability. For future reference, should there be a recurrence of these types of incidents occur everyone should be disciplined, not just the victim.

.
CONFIDENTIAL