Building A Facie Case For Retaliation

STATEMENT OF FACTS: Sheila White interviewed with Marvin Brown and obtained a job as a “track laborer” with Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company. Shortly after her hire date, however, she assumed forklift operator duties. This new assignment still fell under the “track laborer” position description, and White occasionally performed those duties although her primary responsibility was operating the forklift. Three months into her new job, White complained to the company that her immediate supervisor was sexually harassing her on the job. He was temporarily suspended and required to attend sexual harassment training. White was then informed that she was being reassigned to track labor duties only. White

Although the superintendent has the authority to hire and fire teachers, it would be within his best interest to do so based on appropriate legal footing rather than personal bias. The superintendent’s recommendations for Barnhart’s change of employment appears to be grounded in bias. From the beginning he was a dubious supporter of Barnhart as athletic director. He has no proof that she contacted the reporter so is basing his decision on the weak legal footing of assumption. Understandably, he is doing so to balance teacher rights and promoting harmony within the work place which ultimately supports student learning. Several court cases provide guide lines for achieving this balance. The cases of Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) and Connick v. Myers (1983) developed a two pronged test to check the balance. First, does the speech address matters of public concern? Assuming Barnhart did contact the reporter, yes, the information is a matter of public concern since it involves Title IX, a federal civil law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education activities. It is a federal law that high schools treat boys’ and girls’ sports equally. Also, can Burnhart demonstrate her speech interest outweigh the harmony of the district leadership? Again, yes, the speech is not affecting her immediate supervisor, principal Tara Hills as supported by Fales v. Garst

Facts: Gawley was a police officer who worked for Indiana University for several years. She sued the college because she noted sexual harassment by a higher-ranking officer than she was. She also sued because she felt she was part of a hostile work environment and that officers in her department retaliated against her for filing a complaint with the college. Her final argument was that there was spoliation of evidence. The district court found in favor of the employer. The case did not go to trial because the district court granted summary judgment. Summary judgment is used to avoid trials. The decision was made based on two key decisions made by the Supreme Court in other cases and that the university was able to establish an affirmative defense. The university “may assert an affirmative defense that examines the reasonableness of the employer’s and the target’s conduct” (Kaplin & Lee, 2014, p. 167). Gawley then appealed to the United State Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. This case brief will outline the question, holding, reasoning, and significance of this case as it was decided by the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

The Plaintiff contends that Baylor’s knowledge of the potential threat Elliott and other student-athletes posed as well as their deliberate lack of concern subjected her to an increased risk of being sexually assaulted. Specifically, Hernandez alleges that the university failed to address and intentionally concealed the sexual violence committed by football players for several years; the Plaintiff also states that Baylor’s staff was directly and repeatedly told about the sexual assaults committed

1. Watts is absolutely justified in recommending Ann’s dismissal. Ann was speaking on something that was a purely personal concern. She does not have the right to engage in hate speech against her superiors. She is free to disagree with them but she is not free to undermine their authority or disrupt the integrity of the school’s authority. If there are public concerns educators have received the opportunity to speak openly with respect.(U.S. Supreme Court, 1983). Racial slander or hate speech is very disrespectful. The administrators have a responsibility to give Ann due process (Essex, 2012) and recommending her termination affords her such.

Ms. Fisher along with her legal counsel based her allegation of racial discrimination on the university’s system

While there is no documented first case of sexual assault at Boston University, it is clear that it was becoming a national problem by the 1970’s. As early as 1957 Eugene Kanin produced a study prompted by male aggression on university campus’s. In the study Kanin analyzed cases of one hundred and sixty two girls that felt they had been sexually abused on campus. Scholarly literature presented sexual assault on college campus’s by 1957 (Kamentz). In the 1960’s the violent crime rate skyrocketed across America. Women were the main recipients of the misconduct. It is likely that out of the thousands of students and women that attended BU at this time there were incidences of sexual assault. This became apparent nationally in 1972 when the government was called upon to change the law enforcement community (Sacco).

“One in five women are sexually assaulted while in college” (Not Alone, 2014). In our class of twenty women that means that possibly five women have been sexually assaulted. Out of the five women that I stated could have been sexually assaulted they may have known the perpetrator and often will not report what has happened. According to the spring count of students completed by West Chester University, 9,211 of those students were females (“Headcount Enrollment”, 2014). If I go by the statistic mentioned earlier that one in five women is assaulted that would mean that 1,842 women have been sexually assaulted while enrolled at West Chester University of Pennsylvania. Out of 1,842 possible assaults only four were reported last year. Two of which the victims knew prior to the assault. Rankin and Associates consulting conducted a Climate Assessment on West Chester University in September of 2010, a section of the results focused on sexual assault on students. According to the report seven people who reported a sexual assault to the university described their reactions to the universities response. Two students shared the way they felt the response was inappropriate or poor. One described that they felt the suspension for one semester was not an appropriate response to an admitted rape, that public safety lost the victims statement, judicial affairs painted the victim offender as innocent, and that the registrar protected the offender putting the victim in harm’s way and everyone

Charges of workplace discrimination is said to be at an all time high. During the 2015 fiscal year the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity released information that claims there were more than 89,000 charges filed for workplace discrimination. One of the top ten charges is said to be retaliation, which had an estimate 39,757 cases in 2015, which is 44.5 percent of all charges filed. Retaliation is said to be in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, For the purpose of this research paper I will provide the understanding of both Acts, while also taking a case that deals with to provide the basis of the case, the findings, and the outcome of the charges.

For a timeline and a narrative of the cases that set legal precedence in the areas of retaliation and sexual harassment would consist of Williams v. Saxbe in 1976. The court recognized sexual harassment as a form of sexual discrimination when sexual advances by male superior towards female employee. In the Barnes v. Costle case in 1977, it set the precedent that if a female employee was retaliated against for rejecting sexual advances of her boss, it is a violation of Title VIIs prohibition against sex discrimination. The court of US Court of Appeals, Second District ruled in this matter. In the Bundy v. Jackson case in 1981, it set the precedent that if an employee is sexually insulted, there can be Title VII liability. This was ruled by

Whether or not the actions of Ms. Leslie Gonzales towards Mr. Ray Garcia establishes an act of sexual harassment.

It is unlawful for an adult student to sexually harass students or staff at another educational institution

The lack of consistency in higher learning institutions can be attributed to that “until recently such institutions have not been subjected to legal sanction for failing to address the problem (Schneider, 1987, p. 525) Schneider writes, “only two reported federal cases have presented a claim of sexual harassment under Title IX” (p. 527). At the time, the only two reported cases were Alexander v Yale University (1980) and Moine v Temple Univ. School of Medicine (1986). More recently, however, in 2015, Michigan State was in violation of Title IX, as they were not appropriately vetting sexual harassment cases on their campus. “Prior to and during the course of Office for Civil Rights (OCR) investigation, the university made revisions to its Title IX policies and procedures in an effort to correct several Title IX compliance concerns” (ProQuest, 2015). Reiterating the amount of obscurity that exists within the policies that each institution enforces and abides by is, for the most part, no use.

This writer will be discussing a case where a male employee files a sexual harassment claim against the employer as the male employee identifies as being gay. He also is filing discrimination on the basis of his gender and alleges retaliation as he was terminated after he had complained about his female coworker. Apparently, the male employee alleged that a female employee while at a dinner and concert after work hours grabbed his privates. It is important to note that the male employee’s performance prior to the incident was declining and was counseled on several occasions by his employer about his declining production. Furthermore, this writer will be discussing whether if the facts could result in liability to the employer for sexual harassment or gender discrimination. Also, this writer will be integrating and referring to various sources and cases that