a) Sexual harassment “is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors. In most legal contexts sexual harassment is illegal. As defined by EEOC, it is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include sexual harassment or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sexual_harassment

Quid Pro Quo is “most often means a more-or-less equal exchange or substitution of goods or services. English speakers often use the term to mean “a favour for a favour” and the phrases with almost identical meaning include “give and take”, “tit for tat”, “this for that”, and “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo

Hostile work environment sexual harassment “refers to a situation where employees in a workplace are subject to a pattern of exposure to unwanted sexual behavior from persons other than an employee’s direct supervisor where supervisors or managers take no steps to discourage or discontinue such behavior. It is distinguished from quid pro quo sexual harassment, where a direct supervisor seeks sexual favors in return for something within the supervisor’s powers, such as threatening to fire someone, or offering them a raise. Quid pro quo has been recognized as actionable for decades, but courts have only recognized hostile environment as actionable behavior since the late 1980s as they made findings that the loss of employment or constructive dismissal has been caused by such behavior. Some situations that have been ruled to constitute such a hostile work environment are:

➢ Posting pictures of pornography in employee’s cubicles ➢ Consistently telling “dirty” jokes or stories where all employees in the work area can hear them ➢ Tolerating employees who make sexually suggestive remarks about other employees within earshot of others ➢ Allowing peer employees, clients, suppliers, delivery persons, or even customers (Lockard v. Pizza Hut, 162F.3d.1062, 1073) to persist in unwanted attention, such as asking for dates ➢ Allowing the use of devogatory terms with a sexual connotation (e.g., girlie-man and player) to be used to describe co-workers ➢ Allowing frequent physical, contact, even when not sexual”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_environment_sexual_harassment

In Harris v. Wings Incorporated, a beach water retailer/warehouse, a female assistant floor manager who was consistently exposed to the “walls, tables, and bathrooms of the workplace that were covered with graffiti, including slang references to sexual organs and sex acts. The walls were also covered with posters of scantily cladwomen, some of which had been defaced with obscene drawings of sexual organs and crude graffiti. As Harris put it, it was filled with drawings, dirty jokes, racial slurs, the F-word everywhere”. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/US-4th-circuit/1256849.html In addition, her supervisor Ely Levy consistently grabbed her, touched her hair, gave her a massage, held her tightly, stroked her legs, and/or pursued her around the warehouse. I feel that Virginia Pollard could refer to this case because her situation was very much alike but not as thorough. This case would be in Ms. Pollard’s favor. Steve King, a warehouse supervisor of Teddy’s Supplies, engaged in the sing on the truck prank and even convinced her into demonstrating her by mentioning to her that he wouldn’t say anything to management if she took her bra off. In turn, Ms. Pollard walked away and then disclosed her bra. Ms. Pollard was consistently harassed by her six male colleagues who played practical jokes on her everyday which in turn interfered with her work performance in several situations by trapping her in the guard shack and obligating her to hear the backfire of the forklift.

b) It is to my understanding that Ms. Pollard was a victim of hostile environment harassment. Ms. Pollard was a victim of hostile environment harassment. Ms. Pollard was constantly put in a situation that the pranks were directly only to her. Al of these factors demonstrated that she was a victim of hostile environment sexual harassment. No, I don’t think that there is a case in defense to Teddy’s in this case. The affirmations presented in this case against Teddy’s Supplies are apparent that the conditions involved are in violation of Title VII. Steve King, one of Teddy’s Supplies is obvious that the conditions involved are in violation of Title VII. Steve King, one of Teddy’s Supplies supervisors, knew that the six male colleagues were playing pranks on her. The pranks and conduct of her six male colleagues were unwelcomed by Ms. Pollard which created calumniating work environment.

1) In Hall v. Gus Construction Co., “a construction company employed three females to work as “flag persons” or traffic controllers at the road construction sites. Male co-workers immediately and continually subjected the women to outrageous verbal sexual abuse. One of the three women developed a skin reaction to the sun and the men nicknamed her “Herpes”. When the women returned to their car after work one day, they found obscenities written in the dust on their car. Male co-workers continuously asked the woman if they wanted to engage in sexual intercourse or oral sex. In addition to the verbal abuse, the women were constantly subjected to offensive and unwelcomed physical contact. On one occasion, the men held up one of the female employees so that the driver of a truck could touch her. The men subjected all three women to other types of abuse, including “mooning” them, showing them pornographic pictures, and urinating in their water bottles and automobile gas tanks. The company’s supervisor was well aware of all of these activities. The court found this conduct violated Title VII because it was unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, even though it did not contain explicit sexual overtones”.

http://openjurist.org/842/f2d/1010/hall-v-gus-construction-co-inc

2) In Harris v. Wings Incorporated, a beach water retailer/warehouse employed a female assistant floor manager who was consistently exposed to the “walls, tables and bathrooms of the workplace that were covered with graffiti, including slang references to sexual organs and sex acts. The walls were also covered with posters of scantily cladwomen, some of which had been defaced with obscene drawings of sexual organs and crude graffiti. As Harris put it, “It was filled with drawings, dirty jokes, racial slurs, the F-word everywhere”.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/US-4th-circuit/1256849.html

In addition, her supervisor Ely Levy consistently grabbed her, touched her, gave her a massage, held her tightly, stroked her legs, and/or pursed her around the warehouse. “Ample evidence, however, supports the conclusion that the company had notice of its employees’ harassing conduct and failed to respond to it. IN the light of this evidence, the jury returned verdicts for Harris on a Title VII sexual harassment claim. In evaluating the sufficiency of evidence on the malice or reckless indifference of the employer, the courts have focused on three types of evidence: (1) evidence of the employer’s attitude towards sexual harassment; (2) direct statements by the employer about plaintiff’s rights or complaints; and (3) the egregiousness of the conduct at issue”. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/US-4th-circuit/1256849.html

d) “Disparate treatment is one of the theories of discrimination under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act; the other theory is disparate impact. Title VII prohibits employers from treating applicants or employees differently because of their membership in a protected class. A disparate treatment violation is made out when an individual of a protected group is shown to have been singled out and treated less favorably than others similarly situated on the basis of an impermissible criterion under Title VII. The issue is whether the employer’s actions were motivated by discriminatory intent. Discriminatory intent can either be shown by direct evidence, or through indirect or circumstantial evidence. Under Title VII, a disparate treatment plaintiff must establish “that the defendant had a discriminatory intent or motive for taking a job-related action”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_treatment

I feel that disparate treatment occurred in the Pollard case. Ms. Pollard would not have been treated this way if she wasn’t a female. Under these circumstances, her only defense against the men was to file a complaint and/or notify her supervisor. The incident that occurred that involved the sign on the truck that read “HARDHAT REQUIRED/BRA OPTIONAL” clearly demonstrated that she was mistreated due to her gender. When she complained to her supervisor, and he told her to “grow some balls and get over herself” which indicates that his case involves disparate treatment and sexual harassment.

3) The sexual harassment form of Teddy’s Supplies should have a more to the point approach on the policy that applies to sexual harassment.

Teddy’s Supplies regarding the section on sexual harassment form reads, “This policy prohibits any illegal discrimination or harassment of any employee by another employee, co-worker, supervisor or vendor. All employees are entitled to a harassment and discrimination free environment. The company has a “zero-tolerance” policy with respect to harassment or discrimination. A safe work environment is the goal of Teddy’s Supplies”.

The sexual harassment form below is much more in detail and reduces the chances of misconception.

“The Company prohibits sexual harassment of its employees and applicants for employment by any employee, non-employee or applicant. Such conduct may result in disciplinary action up to and including discharge. This policy covers all employees. The Company will not tolerate, condone or allow sexual harassment, whether engaged in by fellow employees, supervisors, associates, clients or other non-employees who conduct business with the company”.

“Sexual harassment is any behavior that includes unwelcome sexual advances and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: ➢ Submission to, or rejection of, such conduct is used as the basis for promotions or other employment decisions; ➢ The conduct unreasonably interferes with an individual’s job performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment”

“No manager or supervisor shall threaten or imply than an employee’s refusal to submit to sexual advances will adversely affect that person’s employment, compensation, advancement, assigned duties, or any other term or condition of employment or career development, sexual joking, lewd pictures, and any conduct that tends to make employees of one gender “sex objects” are prohibited”.

http://www.elinfonet.com/pickedpol/144.html

This type of statement regarding sexual harassment will aid in setting the structure for an employee conduct that is dealt by Teddy’s Supplies. A straight to the point and at the same time easy to understand and definition of sexual harassment will aid to guard Teddy’s Supplies from sexual harassment that could be eliminated by work discipline before it gets our of hand and goes to court. Teddy’s Supplies should have discharged their supervisor, Steve King, since allowed his employees to play pranks such as sexual teases and vulgar signs. If this new policy was in place, it might have prevented this case in making it to court by coming to an agreement between the employer and employee. Steve King violated the sexual harassment procedures when he mentioned to Ms. Pollard that he would not report her to management if she took off her bra. These particular comments are against any sexual harassment policies that are made by the federal government.

Teddy’s Supplies needs some changes that will aid to guard the company as well as its workers. I have enclosed some recommendations and suggestions for improving the current policy.

“Employees who have complaints of sexual harassment should (and are encouraged to) report such complaints to their supervisor. If this person is the cause of the offending conduct, the employee may report this matter directly to [specify various officials, (e.g. Director of Human Resources, designated Vice Presidents, President, etc.]. Your complaint will be promptly and thoroughly investigated. Confidentiality of reports and investigations of sexual harassment will be maintained to the greatest extent possible. Any manager, supervisor, or employee who, after appropriate investigation, is found to have engaged in sexual harassment of another employee or tutor will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge”.

http://www.elinfonet.com/pickedpol/144.html

In the case that the employee cannot place an accusation on the online website, then the employee(s) need to first call the technical support telephone hotline number at the bottom of the sexual harassment form. This phone number will connect the employee with an operator that will transfer him/her to the designated technician for assistance. If the technician cannot solve the issue in a reasonable time, the technician will give the employee a ticket no. and a reasonable time frame to try to submit the online complaint again. Under these circumstances, the employee is encouraged to announce the complaint to the Director of Human Resources, Vice President of Operations, the CEO, or any faculty in the office of Human Resources. If this does occur, it will result in not supplying the employee(s) with any guardianship under the law. This change will assist in guarding the employer in the instances where proper reporting procedures are not followed by the employee.

The current sexual harassment form of Teddy’s Supplies needs to implement a Policy Commentary Section that enforces strong policy sexual harassment.

“It is imperative that employers establish and maintain a strong policy prohibiting sexual harassment. Under the recent United States Supreme Court decisions in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (http://caselaw./p.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=524&invol=775) an employer may successfully defend against a supervisor’s sexual harassment if it can demonstrate that:

i) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the harassing conduct; and ii) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventative or corrective opportunities.

Clearly to establish the second prong of the defense, the employer must prove that the complaining employee knew of preventative or corrective opportunities, such as a complaint procedure contained in anti-harassment policy, and therefore, an employee manual that does not contain a sexual harassment policy does an employer a disservice”.

http;//www.elifonet.com/pickedpol/144.html

A company should have specific procedures in order that employees need to know when they are hired. Specific procedures are held in a particular section in the employee handbook that supplies a strong affirmation regarding sexual harassment procedures will not be allowed by any manner. This book, as well as a sexual harassment policy, will be given to the employee on their date of hire. A form will be given to the employee requesting their signature acknowledging all the employer’s rules and regulations.