Quid Pro Quo Vs. Hostile Environment Harassment

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.

Supreme Court case Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson of 1986, and Harris v. Forklift Systems of 1993 are examples of a more recent judicial action that has helped shape the contemporary sexual harassment practice (Siegel, 2004). These mentioned two sexual harassment cases linked the unwanted sexual harassment to affecting the employee’s performance and work environment. Furthermore, no substantial victim mental distress is required to receive jury award (Robbins, Decenzo & Coulter,

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.

The United States Supreme Court, as well as federal district and state courts, defines employee rights and an employer’s liability for employment law violations. Treatment on the job, including hiring, firing, and promotions, must be based on qualifications and merit and not on race, gender, age, sexual preference or how one responds to sexual advances. Yet despite these laws and policies, many employees continue to suffer from workplace harassment and employment discrimination.

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.

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.

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

Plaintiff, Deborah Burke, submits this memorandum in opposition to Defendant Strickland Watson Pierce, P.C.’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim should not be dismissed because she exhausted all the administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and being terminated during the investigation. Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd., 551 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2009); Clockedile v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corr., 245 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001); Franceschi v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 514 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2008). Further, the conduct she suffered in the workplace was sufficiently severe to qualify as a sexually hostile environment. The Court should deny the motion.

In Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. in the 1970s, Lois Jenson was also subject to a similar situation where a Hostile Work Environment was created in her job at Eleventh Taconite mine Co. in Minnesota, where she was regularly threatened and harrassed in a secual manner and felt

Walsh, D. J. (2013). Employment law for human resource practice (4th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage

In 1973, Minnesota Supreme Court made decicion, National Biscuit Company v. Lange, the case involved an angry sales man who assaulted the store manager. Immediately when the salesman assaulted the store manager, the manager made a decision whereby he sued the salesman’s company, pointing out the careless hiring retention, and went ahead on vicarious claims of the respondeat superior. The main cause of the disagreement between the two was the shelf space where the salesman, in his own ability was trying to respect his master. But the Question which arouse is, what motivated the assault? The Supreme Court did not accept to follow the origin of the conflict carefully, hence rejecting the statement which states that the arbitrary determination of at what time the assault and the argument left the sphere of the employers business where the employer embraced his

I definitely would have to agree with this statement and quote because in many of the workplace organizations in today’s society isn’t concerned with common sense and compassion. Employees are always caring about if the organization is going to sue someone or vice versa. In today’s world managers and supervisors work extremely hard to prevent from being sued by other people by bending over backwards to make people happy. Within this nobody isn’t concerned about common sense or compassion, nobody’s concerned about that, they are more interested in not being sued. Litigation has resulted or created a system where Human resource managers have lack of attention of what actually matters when it comes to employee dissatisfaction and alleviated stress levels.

As seen in the case study, a court decision may be one way for any company to legally define what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace, but there are many ways to define sexual harassment. Everyone has different views and tolerance levels towards sexual harassment. When a case of sexual harassment occurs in a workplace, however, it comes down to how the courts define sexual harassment. The Supreme Court defines sexual harassment to be unlawful in two ways. “The first type involves sexual harassment that results in a tangible employment action;” this is referred to as quid pro quo. For example, if an employee complies with the harasser’s request, then she will get a raise. This unlawful act is usually presented in the workplace by a person who has an upper hand, such as a manager, to ensure that s/he will get what s/he wants. Employees are often victimized by fear that they will not get promoted or that they will get fired. They also dread that if a complaint is filed, it will not be handled correctly. “This instance of sexual harassment always involves another violation of employee rights; [sic] wrongful termination.” This would occur, for instance, when “a supervisor . . . tells a subordinate that . . . she must be sexually cooperative with [him] or . . . she will be fired, and who then indeed does fire the subordinate for not submitting” (“U.S. Supreme Court Defines”). [schwinlaw.com]

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