A. Define sexual harassment, including both quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment. Which type(s) do you feel Pollard was a victim of (if either)? 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.
Sexual harassment is defined as, “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment.” Quid pro quo, “sexual harassment is the conditioning of employment benefits on an employee's sub-mission to unwelcome sexual conduct.” And, hostile environment 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.”
In the Pollard case, I feel Teddy’s did allow for a hostile environment harassment to take place and took no means to enforce their “zero-tolerance” policy. Virginia’s direct supervisor (Mr. King) was just as culpable as her male co-workers with the unwanted verbal and sometime physical suggestions. However, her own account does not state that she received any type of benefit from King on behalf of the company for her allowance of said advances.
In order to prove a sexual harassment case, the plaintiff must prove that:
1. she is a member of a protected class (female)
2. she was subjected to harassment either through words or actions, based on sex
3. the harassment had the effect of unreasonably interfering with her work performance and creating an objectively intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment and
4. there exists some basis for liability on the part of the employer
The basis for claim in the Pollard case relates closely to the aforementioned excerpt from an article found on-line (Gallagher v C.H. Robinson). The case involves a woman who worked in a “locker-room” environment and subject to repeated visual, verbal and physical sexual suggestions. The sixth circuit court ruled in favor of Judy Gallagher and agreed that she was subject to working in a hostile environment harassment and that her employer was liable for sustaining work conditions.
Reference:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+harassment http://www.employeerightspost.com/2009/06/articles/sexual-harassment/harassed-female-wins-locker-room-hostile-environment-case/ B. 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. Explain whether you think that case applies to Pollard's case (why or why not) and whether you would want to use this case in Teddy's favor or whether Pollard may use it in her favor. Include the citation to the case and a link to it online. (10 points)
C. Do you agree that Pollard was disparately treated? Why or why not? In your answer, define disparate treatment. (10 points.)
No, I don’t agree that Pollard was disparately treated. “Disparate treatment, in the employment context, refers to when a person is treated differently from others. The different treatment is based on one or more of the protected factors and the different treatment is intentional.” While Pollard was treated differently in relation to the unwanted verbal and physical advances, she was not excluded from warehouse duties and details.
D. Does the existence of a sexual harassment policy provide a defense to Teddy's in this case? Why or why not? (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)
No, in this case, the sexual harassment policy does not provide a defense for Teddy’s. While the company does a policy in place and the policy was signed by Pollard, the company failed to follow procedure in regard to termination without a hearing, or allotted time period to file a claim.
Cases:
Burlington Industries v. Kimberly Ellerth:
“The U.S. Supreme Court ruled "that workers can still bring sexual harassment cases against employers even if the harassment is not reported and the employee's career is never hurt."
Isaiah Thomas v. Anucha Browne Sanders:
“Thomas was found guilty of sexually harassing Browne Sanders, and Madison Square Garden, where the Knicks play, was "ordered to pay her $6 million for creating a hostile workplace and $2.6 million for retaliation."
The CEO asks you to review the sexual harassment policy currently in place that Virginia signed. He wants you to provide him with suggestions for changes to it. Review the policy and give three recommendations for changes, enhancements, and ideas for making the policy stronger. Include your reasons for these suggestions. If you find information online for making these changes, include citations and/or links to that information. Explain how your suggestions may have protected Teddy's in this case. Support these recommendations with current case law.
Policy suggestions:
1)Define sexual harassment in clear, concise and appropriate language 2) Explain sexual harassment in all forms and context 3) procedure to follow if one is sexually harassed, and follow-up guidelines
Defining sexual harassment informs employees who sign the policy as to what behaviors are acceptable and not acceptable in the work place. Explaining sexual harassment informs employees of actions that are not acceptable in the work place. Procedures on how to deal with sexual harassment in the work place informs employees of their rights and protection under the policy.
Reference:
Attached sample in PDF http://www.myjaxchamber.com/images/documents/sexual_harassment.pdf How would Pollard's case be impacted if her replacement had been a female? Would her case be different? Would her damages be different? Explain your answer.
Hard to tell for certain, but I feel it would not had any effect on the case had her replacement been female. The reason being, management’s aware of the environment and Mr. King is probably on his best “gentlemanly” behavior as result of his past infractions and female subordinate. The merit of Pollard’s case is in the undo termination without due process in my opinion. Furthermore, her award for damages was over turned by the Circuit Court because Teddy’s was right to discipline Pollard, therefore no difference.