Burlington Industries, Inc. V. Ellerth, (1998)

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.

An employer can be vicarious liable for co-worker harassment under negligence principles if they knew or had reason to know or had reason to know that the harassment was occurring and did not take adequate steps to address the harassment (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(d); EEOC v. Prospect Airport Servs., Inc., 2010; Porter v. Erie Foods Int'l, Inc., 2009; Barrett, 2006; Mandell, 2005). Employers can also be held liable for harassment by a supervior. (Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 1998; Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth,

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

In what may be the most bewildering court ruling ever produced, “The court held that the complainant’s refusal to have sexual relations with her supervisor, and the resulting elimination of her job, was not discrimination. Rather it was due to ‘the subtleties of an inharmonious personal relationship’” (Gregg, pg. 304,

It is somewhat surprising that employers continue to violate employment laws dealing with discrimination. One case, Catterson v. Marymount Manhattan College, litigated and settled in 2013, was especially egregious. According to the EEOC (2013), the college had refused,

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.

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.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on : Race, Color, Sex, Religion, and National Origin with respect to employment. “Specifically, it states that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer” (Dressler, 2015, p. 28). “It established the concept of protected classes; those individuals who are protected from discrimination by the legal system. It prohibits discrimination in all employment practices. Title VII makes it unlawful to limit or classify employees in any way that deprives them of employment opportunities or hampers their career progression when that classification is based on their protected status” (SHRM). Title VII also established the EEOC Commission (EEOC) and applies to employers with 15 or more employees and most labor unions.

Weber, 443 U.S. 193 the court reversed the appellate court affirm the district court finding of collectively bargained affirmative the plan of action violation of the title vii of Civil Rights Act 1964. The Judicial finding some craft exclusion to the rule Such as the following cases, United States v. Elevator Constructors, 538 F.2d 1012 (CA3 1976); Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts v. Altschuler, 490 F.2d 9 (CA1 1973); Southern Illinois Builders Assn. v. Ogilvie, 471 F.2d 680 (CA7 1972); Contractors Assn. of Eastern Pennsylvania v. Secretary of Labor, 442 F.2d 159 (CA3 1971); Insulators & Asbestos Workers v. Vogler, 407 F.2d 1047 (CA5 1969); Buckner v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 339 F.Supp. 1108 (ND Ala. 1972), aff'd without opinion, 476 F.2d 1287 (CA5 1973). Also well as, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Challenge Ahead: Equal Opportunity in Referral Unions 58-94 (1976) (summarizing judicial findings of discrimination by craft unions); G. Myrdal, An American Dilemma 1079-1124 (1944); F. Marshall & V. Briggs, The Negro and Apprenticeship (1967); S. Spero & A. Harris, The Black Worker (1931); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Employment 97 (1961); State Advisory Committees, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 50 States Report 209 (1961); Marshall, The Negro in Southern Unions, in The Negro and the American Labor Movement 145 (J. Jacobson ed. 1968); App. 63,

Paul Morel, a former employee of Baxter Heaton, LLP, has brought suit against his former employer for sexual harassment and hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The defendant, Baxter Heaton, respectfully requests the court to grant summary judgment against Morel. A reasonable employee would not have perceived the work environment to be hostile and Morel himself did not perceive the environment to be hostile. Also, Morel cannot impute his co-worker’s conduct to the firm because the firm was not negligent in handling the matter.

Another legal case that was reviewed, and is a directly correlated to EEOC and Civil Rights discrimination issues is the Alaimo v. Thompsonville Fire District #2 and Collen Ann Reidy. In this case we again see Civil Rights Act violations as well as Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 under 29 USC § 791 and Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 violations (Phelan, 2015). Additionally, we see State of Connecticut Workers Compensation Retaliation Violations related to Conn. Gen. § 31-290a and Conn. Gen. § 31-76b. In this case we again see retaliation against Alaimo for he didn’t agree with a politicians plans not to build a new fire station. Instead of following the laws, statues, regulations and policies as they relate to an employee the Commissioners

In the case of Blanton v Newton Associates, Inc., Blanton’s was clearly harassed. In cases such as this, the employer (Newton) would find their best defense in the cases of Burlington Industustries, Inc. v Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998), and Faragher v City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998).

The appeals court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer. Under the ADEA, plaintiffs in the disparate treatment claims must show that age was the “but-for” case of the challenge employment decision. Although this case might otherwise be a good candidate for a mixed-motives analysis that is not a possibility under the ADEA. Nevertheless, the court found the combination of fairly strong circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive and some reasons to disbelieve the employer’s claim was sufficient to warrant a trial. The court found particularly significant the statement of Lindsey and Thomas, who participated in the decision to terminate Baker, evincing a preference for the employment of younger workers over

The Court of Appeals overturned that a violation of Title VII may predicate on either of two types of sexual harassment, employment benefits on sexual favors, and a hostile or offensive working environment. As to the bank 's liability, the Court of Appeals held that an employer is liable for sexual harassment by supervisory personnel, whether or not the employer knew or should have known about it. US Supreme Court (1986)

Under Title VII there are two kinds of sexual harassment quid pro quo and hostile environment. The first, quid pro quo, is when a person in a supervisory position places the performance of sexual favors as a condition on sustaining or gaining employment or other employment benefits. Harassment of this type holds the employer strictly liable for all damages to the affected employee. The second, hostile environment harassment occurs when behavior by a co-worker or supervisor is pervasive enough to have a negative effect on the employee. The employer is only held liable for hostile work environment harassment when they had knowledge of the situation or the situation was so pervasive that the employer should have known about it.