Case Analysis: Employment Discrimination
A person accepts employment with the understanding they will be free of discrimination while in the position. When a discriminatory action takes place, the trust between the employer and employee is broken leaving the employee feeling dejected. Sometimes litigation is the only method to allow the employee to feel whole again. Litigation can also shed light on a looming problem within the organization the employer avoided addressing. In the below scenario, Anna believes she is a victim of discrimination and is filing a hostile work environment action against her employer.
Anna’s Claim Summary
Anna claims Michael, her immediate supervisor violated two organizational policies: initializing closed-door
…show more content…
Protected classes include sex, national origin, race, color, and religion. In Title VII, sex refers to an employee’s gender. Under Title VII, employees of one sex cannot be treated differently than employees of the opposite sex unless there is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the different treatment (Reed & Bogardus, 2012).
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (n.d.) defines sexual harassment as, “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature” (para. 1). The EEOC (n.d.) expands on the definition of sexual harassment to include “teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious” (para. 4), but create an environment that is hostile or offensive to work in while impacting the employee’s job status. Employees of the organization and the organization’s customers can be instigators of sexual harassment toward an employee. When the harassment occurs in a work capacity, the employer has vicarious liability. Vicarious liability holds the employer or the employer’s principle liable for the actions of the employee or agent (Cornell University Law School, n.d.a) while in a working
…show more content…
Gallegos, Ellen Spain’s immediate supervisor, Eugene Nelson requested loans from Spain on multiple occasions (a violation of company policy) in return for a promotion (Spain v. Gallegos, 1994). Spain agreed to loan Nelson money and during the exchanges co-workers perceived the two to be having a romantic relationship. Rumors began to spread of the relationship between the supervisor and subordinate. Spain asked Nelson to put an end to the rumors; Nelson did not. Initially, Spain did receive the promotion promised by Nelson, but a few years later when Spain refused to loan Nelson more money she was turned down for a second promotion. The tangible employment action was a result of the rumors (King, 1995). Using the same questions in Jew v. University of Iowa, Spain was able to prove the rumors of her supervisor and her having sexual relationship created a hostile work
Marcus Ashmore and Terrell Lee Green were maintenance workers for J.P. Thayer Co., Inc. under supervisor Gene Fye. After a particular incident of harassment on January 16, 2001, Plaintiffs reported Fye to Tricia Johnson, the Assistant Property Manager. At this time, Johnson did nothing about the complaint. The harassment continued, and on January 26, Plaintiffs complained to the Property Manager, Mary Frances de Rivera. In response, de Rivera verbally reprimanded Fye. This, however, did not stop Fye’s harassment. Instead of reporting the behavior to Defendant, Plaintiffs hired an attorney who wrote a letter to Defendant saying that Ashmore and Green were going to file charges of discrimination with the EEOC. On February 22, Fye was fired by Defendant. This came three days after getting the letter and about a month after the initial harassment complaints.
Sexual harassment is always a legal topic in the work environment because the ramifications are so severe, but at the same time very abstract to describe what can constitute sexual harassment. This paper will take into consideration different elements of the law including Employment Law and cases tried before the U.S. Supreme Court. It will also offer suggestions for corrective action pertaining to the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace.
VA Empl. Comm’n, 1997 Va. App. LEXIS 178 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 1997). (citing Umbarger v. Virginia Empl. Comm’n, 404 S.E.2d 380, 383 (Va. Ct. App. 1990)). In Gardner v. Hercules the court found that an employee who becomes dissatisfied with their work environment must pursue every available option to alleviate or correct the environment before he or she can quit her job. Gardner v. Hercules, Inc., 1996 Va. App. LEXIS 22 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 1996). Furthermore in Smith v. S.W. Rodgers the plaintiff was sexually harassed by direct managers. Smith v. S.W. Rogers Co., 1999 Va. App. LEXIS 436 (Va. Ct. App. July 20, 1999). Plaintiff complained to other managers that were on the same level as the manager who were sexually harassing her, but not to higher management for fear of retaliation. Id. However, plaintiff finally reported it, but decided not to return to work. The court found that although her sexual assault claim was legitimate, the plaintiff had not allowed the situation to resolve prior to quitting and therefore she did not quit with good cause. Id. In order to find “good cause” the court looks for factors or circumstances which
However, in this case, Saundra Davis wasn’t the only conflict of interest Vance had issues with; Vance had a second altercation with another co-worker named Connie McVicker. For her part, McVicker called Vance a “porch money” and used the term “nigger” to refer to both her and other African-American students. Vance was informed co-worker McVicker family has connections to the Ku Klux Klan. Vance was frightened, she claimed both co-workers used racial slur towards her in the workplace. When Vance reported the harassment to the University’s Compliance Office, Kimes investigated the complaints. During the process, Kimes was very rude and a little prejudice; he refused to shake Vance’s hand. After the investigation was completed Davis walked away freely, Kimes exhorted both Davis and Vance to “respect” each other in the workplace. Co-workers witnessed Davis daughter accosted Vance on campus, making racist threaten statements. The co-workers who witnessed the complaints should have come forward, but instead, they keep quite. Vance complained to the EEOC and filed harassment charges proclaimed Davis violated her civil rights and denied her breaks, in response to the investigations no sign of
Is an employer held liable for sexual harassment caused by a supervisor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Harassment, specifically sexual harassment, is one of those challenges faced by businesses and employers as of a result of workplace diversification. Inappropriate conversations, unwanted advances and uncomfortable physical contact are some of the ways sexual harassment can occur. According to Hellriegel and Slocum, “Sexual harassment refers to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” (p.52). To be clear, sexual harassment can, and has, affected both women and men over the years however up to half of all working women have reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment in the career (Vijayasiri, 2008, p.1). It wasn’t until 1986 though that the Supreme Court recognized sexual harassment as a violation of Title VII in the case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (O’Brien, 1994, p. 1). Before the high court’s ruling, however, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had begun to address the issue by drafting hostile work environment guidelines that included sexual harassment (O’Brien, 1994, p. 4). These guidelines would serve later to guide the high court’s decision. There are many more cases like this one we could look at. In 1991, sexual harassment became a household term as Anita Hill testified before congress stating she was sexually
The social policy I chose to write about is “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” sexual harassment in the workplace. According to equal employment opportunity commission (EEOC), Title VII applies to the company has 15 or more employees including state and local governments. In addition, it also applies to federal government employment agencies and labor organization. Under the law Title VII stated that sexual harassment is unwanted Sexual advances, solicitations for sexual favors, including verbal or physical behavior thought others. “Sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment” (Facts About Sexual Harassment - EEOC Home Page, 1964). Sexual discrimination or sexual favoritism in the workplace which affects or eliminate other potential candidates its "form of implicit "quid pro quo" harassment and/or "hostile work environment" harassment" (Policy Guidance on Employer Liability under Title VII for ..., 1990). In this essay, I will explain the capabilities and vulnerabilities of the framework as well as analyze the women’s empowerment framework. At the end of my paper, you will have a good understanding how Sex discrimination and work situations environment.
Although great strides in fighting gender discrimination were taken in the 1970s, largely due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, abuses falling within the category of sexual harassment generally were not addressed. Finally, in 1980, the EEOC wrote and released guidelines that defined sexual harassment. They described it as one form of sex discrimination prohibited by the 1964 act. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 referred to as Title VII, prohibits employment discrimination and harassment based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin in addition to sexual harassment. The law specifically states;
The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be found in the United States Code (Pub. L. 88-352) Volume 42.The basis of the act Title VII is to prevent employment discrimination against race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Title VII prohibits an employer from both (i) discriminating against an employee on the basis of sex, and (ii) retaliating against an employee for complaining about prior discrimination or retaliation. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the purpose of the act is to enforce the
Sexual harassment is a demeaning practice, one that constitutes a profound affront to the dignity of the employees forced to endure it. By requiring an employee to contend with unwelcome sexual actions or explicit sexual demands, sexual harassment in the workplace attacks the dignity and self-respect of the victim both as an employee and as a human being. Sexual harassment is well defined as an unwelcome sexual request for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. In many countries, sexual harassment is considered a form of sexual abuse and employment discrimination. Sexual harassment is most prevalent is organizations both professional and academic, though it can occur almost anywhere.
Work place policies regarding sexual harassment is the main issue discussed in this article. Sexual harassment has continued to be a challenge within the workplace. According to a recent review of sexual harassment related resolutions, employers have paid over $732,976.00 in sexual harassment fines (Hobson, Szostek, & Fitzgerald, 2015). The EEOC has issued written guidelines for appropriate strategies employers should use to handle workplace sexual harassment and specific ways to address it. It is the employer’s duty to proactively work to protect all employees from any type of sexual harassment by following sexual harassment policies and procedures that are put in place. Failure to implement and follow the policy and procedure in the workplace can and most likely will lead to liability should an EEOC investigation or lawsuit occur. The employer needs to disperse copies of the policies and procedures and post them in central locations throughout the organization and address sexual harassment in the employee handbooks. The policy and procedures need to clear
Providing training about harassment has proven beneficial to the business environment. As the former EEOC Chairman stated “Sex harassment has developed as one of the great lessons in how education can have an effect on an offensive practice.” There are education campaigns educating not only employees but employers about what harassment entails, how to prevent it, and how to deal with a claim. (Glazer, 1996) In fact, most
Another form of sexual harassment is a hostile work environment. The hostile environment theory involves sexual advances between the supervisor and the employee. An employee’s work performance will be less effective due to these so-called sexual advances. However, a victim can file a complaint against their harasser so that they do not continuously force them to participate. Consequently, they will be forced to hand in their resignation. [This is an issue of power and has nothing to do with sex. For this reason, both male and females can be the harasser. The harasser’s main purpose is to force another to feel or act in a certain way. Sometimes, sexual harassment causes an individual from effectively performing his/her job. As a result, is undermines an individual’s dignity. In our society, there are three essential factors that relate to the issue of sexual advances. These elements are a divergence of perceptions, the complexity of human behavior and the attitudes of a sexist.]
Being a member of a protected group was established by Title VII by the Supreme Court including the protection for both male and females. All individuals regardless of gender are protected by Title VII. An individual must prove that they did not welcome the behavior or gestures which were displayed in a sexual nature. The plaintiff would need to prove that any harassment they endured was initiated because of the individuals gender whether it be male or female. An individual does not have to endure situations which cause their work environment to become hostile because of sufficiently severe or pervasive behavior by another individual.