Mr. Moore, the current facts are as follows, you have a female employee that was sexually harassed during several instances. First, she was the subject of various pranks and other forms of workplace bullying by her fellow male colleagues. Second, she was subject to harassment by being spanked by a fellow employee. Third she was subject to verbal harassment by being told to "grow some balls" and also by harassment from male employees putting sings up saying bras optional. Lastly, she was discriminated against by being fired for negligent behavior when there were no repercussions for men acting in similar poor behavior. Since these facts show that Teddy's Supplies' is a culture of hostile working conditions it would be difficult for you, Mr. Moore to show that the company acted prudent to prevent said behavior despite the policies in place and the circumstances. As case law of Teresa Harris v Forklift Systems, Inc. points out a pattern of insulting behavior is a form of sexual discrimination so the fact that a pattern of insulting behavior towards Mrs. Pollard exists does provide evidence that discrimination is present. Given that Mrs. Pollard was the only female in the main warehouse and such an environment was present it is clear Mrs. Pollard was receiving disparate treatment due to the fact she was a female.

My best advice on what to offer for settlement would be two times her salary. Offering two times her salary would pay for the time she had to endure the criticism and harassment she suffered while in the workplace. It would also provide her front pay to make her whole for the time it takes to find another similar job while displaced from the current one. I would also ask her to sign a NDA and also agree that she will not apply for any jobs in the future with Teddy's Supplies'. By providing such a strong offer she will likely desire to settle which will save a lot of money on defense costs and also allow the company to set the terms which will possibly prevent the companies name from being tarnished.

If Mrs. Pollards replacement would have been female the case would not have changed because it doesn't change the facts/circumstances of what Mrs. Pollard faced in her work environment. Since there was a clear pattern of sexual harassment via a hostile work environment it wouldn't have changed the circumstances which Mrs. Pollard had to deal with had a male employee been hired afterwards or not and therefore the damages would also not have changed. Furthermore since the act of discrimination occurred when the company decided to reprimand Mrs. Pollard and not the other male employees hiring a female wouldn't have changed that act of discrimination either. So regardless of who was hired after Mrs. Pollard the acts of hostile work environment and discrimination were carried out before her replacement was hired.

a. As Kobasek explains the EEOC and US Supreme court defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, which explicitly or implicitly makes submission a term or condition of employment or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment.

Quid pro quo (this for that) sexual harassment occurs when a supervisor makes sexual demands on someone of the opposite sex, and this demand is reasonably perceived as a term of condition of employment. (Kubasek, 568)

Hostile environment sexual harassment is an environment that is one can reasonably deem is abusive and detracts from ones job performance.

b. Based on the facts of the case, Teddy's Supplies' had created a hostile work environment sexual harassment. As our text provides a great case study of Harris v Forklift Systems, Inc. it is clear that continuous, verbal defamation is a form of sexual harassment.

c. As Kobasek explains the three most important defenses to violations of Title VII are bona fide occupational qualification, merit, and seniority. The first defense of BFOQ would not stand scrutiny since Pollard was already working in the job so there is so defense to this position. Merit and seniority both are possible defenses though that are available to Teddy's. As Kobasek explains merit claims must pass a test to be used as a defensible position. Teddy's would argue that Pollard failed content validity in that she failed to properly perform the minimum job standards which is why she was fired. Regarding why only Pollard was fired the defense of seniority systems would be used. (Kobasek, 572) Teddy could argue that the men (who were working in the warehouse before Pollard) were more senior in nature which is why they didn't face the same discipline as Pollard and therefore was the reason for her termination. Kobasek provides a few case examples in regards to this. in Desert Palace v Costa nearly the same circumstances apply as in our case. Costa was the only female but was terminated due to poor conduct with a male employee. The male employee retained his job though.

d. Disparate treatment occurs when one individual is treated less favorably than another because of color, race, religion, sex, or national origin. (Kubasek, 564) I believe the HRC found that disparate treatment had occurred due to the retaliation that Pollard suffered when she was fired for showing her bra. The other employees had clearly also been in the wrong but given that no consequences were given to the men that disparate treatment was present.

There are numerous ways in which the current handbook can be improved. The top 3 ways which to improve the handbook though are as follows:
1) Harassment should be clearly defined as follows: behavior or comments that create a hostile work environment for another person because of race, religion, color, sex, age, pregnancy, national origin, disability, veteran or family status, or any other status or condition protected by applicable federal, state or local laws.
Verbal, physical, sexual or any other form of harassment that belittles or demeans any individual on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, age, pregnancy, national origin, disability, veteran or family status, or any other status or condition protected by applicable federal, state or local laws is also strictly prohibited.
Prohibited harassment includes conduct that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an employee’s work performance or experience or creating an environment that is hostile, intimidating or offensive.
Sexual advances; requests or demands for sexual favors; threats; physical conduct of a harassing nature; jokes; slurs; and other harassing language or conduct that is meant to intimidate or that negatively impacts an employee’s work environment is strictly prohibited. (this is found from my employers own handbook)

2) Discrimination should also be a clearly define term: discrimination against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, age, pregnancy, national origin, disability, veteran or family status, or any other status or condition protected by applicable federal, state or local laws, except where a bona fide occupational qualification applies, is strictly prohibited. (found from my employers handbook)

3) The company should make their reporting guidelines more strict so that harassment doesn't get dragged out and the harassment isn't prolonged: If you do not feel comfortable reporting as listed above or if you did report and are not satisfied with the response, then you should direct your report or dissatisfaction to [e.g., Human Resources Department, Personnel Department, EEO Department, Compliance Department or the President, CEO, owner].

Please note that you are not required to confront the person or persons who have given you reason to report. However, if you experience harassment, you must make a reasonable effort to make it known to those listed above as soon as you experience or discover it. Discussing or reporting acts of harassment to any person not listed above does not constitute a report.

Any employee or workplace participant who harasses another in violation of this policy is subject to discipline, termination, or other appropriate consequences.

(MUST PROVIDE CASE LAW FOR THIS)