Quid Pro Quo Vs. Hostile Environment Harassment

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Sperling’s harassing conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination “against any individual with respect to his . . . terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's . . . sex.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (West 2018). Chamberlin v. 101 Realty, Inc., 915 F.2d 777, 779 (1st Cir. 1990), superseded in part by statute, Pub. L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071 (1991). Mere utterances, simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents are not actionable under Title VII. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998); Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). Furthermore, a plaintiff must show that the harassing conduct subjectively and objectively created a hostile work environment. Faragher, 524 U.S. at 787. Here, both parties have agreed that Ms. Travers could satisfy the subjective

The significance of this case revolves around the “supervisor(s)” liability rule under the Title VII. The rule under the Title VII act clearly states that employer’s liability for workplace harassment depends upon the status or job title and duties of the harasser. Summarizing that if the harasser is a co-worker the employer will only be held accountable if negligence in diffusing the intense and awkward work conditions was found on their part. However, if the harasser is a supervisor, (has the power to change employee work status i.e. hire, fire, etc.), and the harassment results in tangible actions towards the employee such as changes in duties, benefits, etc… the employer is totally liable. On the other hand, the employer is not liable if corrective measures and procedure were provided on the companies end, or if the plaintiff ignored or disregarded corrective measures provided by the employer.

On one hand, it held that employers are not strictly liable for sexual harassment by supervisors. On the other hand, it stated that employers can be liable for sexual harassment without actual notice of the alleged discriminatory conduct. Id. It agreed with the EEOC that courts should look to agency principles to determine liability (Ellison v. Brady, 1991)

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

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

In reviewing Janie’s claim of harassment, we need to look at the different types of harassment and see if her situation falls in to one of these categories. Quid pro quo and hostile work environment are both forms of harassment, while retaliation is an adverse treatment of an employee by an employer or supervisor.

The “good faith” exception states that employers may only terminate an employment relationship based on good faith. Terminations based on bad faith or terminations motivated by malicious intent are thereby prohibited with this exception. Susan and the Human Resource Department need to investigate Phil’s personal vendetta against Susan’s boss to assure that a bad faith claim cannot be claimed in case of employment separation.

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.

Employers need to have a clear understanding about the laws that are in place to protect them and their employees as well as how to prevent and address such claims. An option for employers is provide training for their employees and supervisors. Research shows that 49.7% of harassment cases are seen between co-workers, 26.4% from direct supervisors, 17.1% from other superior, and 6.8% from customers and vendors (Glazer, 1996). The trainings Santiago-Santos will provide employers with an insight on how to adapt their internal policies to comply with employment laws. Also, the employer training will help them develop a process of reporting and dealing with such claims internally and what their rights are when a claim reaches the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).