Ethics Hw Week 6

2207 Words9 Pages
ETHICS HW WEEK 6 ------------------------------------------------- 1. | Question: | Teddy's Supplies' CEO has asked you to advise him on the facts of the case, and your opinion of their potential liability. Write a memo to him which states your view of whether the company is exposed to liability on all issues you feel are in play. Include in your memo any laws which apply and any precedential cases either for or against Teddy's case which impact liability. Include your opinion of the "worst case" of damages the company may have to pay to Virginia. | | Your Answer: | Memo to CEO: Your company is in fact in liability for negligence in protecting the best interest of your employee, Pollard. Even though she participated in many of…show more content…
In addition, the conduct must be unwelcome to you. If you like, want, or welcome the conduct, then you are not being sexually harassed. And if the conduct does not relate to your sex or have sexual references, it's not sexual harassment. 1998 the Supreme Court decided in Ellerth v. Burlington Industries, No. 97-569 and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, No. 97-282 that companies may be held vicariously liable if supervisors sexually harass workers even if the employees do not report the harassment and suffered no tangible loss. By making employers liable for supervisors' sexual harassment encourages an employer, as no other regime does, to exercise the greatest possible care in screening prospective managers and in training, supervising and monitoring supervisory personnel. It gives employers an incentive to put effective policies and training programs in place. In fact, 54% of Fortune 500 employers admitted in one survey that fears of legal exposure prompted them to establish company policies against harassment. And experience has shown these policies and programs work. Companies that have implemented sexual harassment training programs have reported reduced numbers of claims that develop into lawsuits. yes this case would apply to pollards case because in this case too the sexual harassment was not being reported. The companies were
Open Document