The Pros And Cons Of Enforcement Harassment

• Harassment by a third party: employers are potentially liable for the harassment of staff or customers by people they don't directly employ, such as a contractor.

“Jail employees may be legally liable for their actions” (Clear, Reisig, Petrosino & Cole p.77). This is relevant to the first half of the class because as we discuss corrections it’s important to know who is responsible within the system. I chose it because I experienced a warden stepping down for the actions of another staff member. Everyone should be responsible for their own actions but “Supervisors, including wardens can be liable for the actions of their staff members (Clear et al., p.78). I understand that an administrator should be

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)

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,

38. Which of the following describes when an employer is held vicariously liable for the torts of the “servant” or employee if the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment?

b. Your instructor has the initial responsibility to take appropriate action with regard to cheating. Correct

12. Which of the following torts committed by an agent is the liability of the principal?

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.

1. The court meant by its statement that negligent hiring and negligent retention “rely on liability on the part of an individual or a business that has been on the basis of negligence or other factors resulting in harm or damage to another individual or their property” (Luthra, 2011) and not on “an obligation that arises from the relationship of one party with another” (Luthra, 2011). The court meant that “negligent hiring and negligent retention do not rely on the scope of employment but address risks created by exposing members of the public to a potentially dangerous individual” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457).

B. The decision-maker reconciled the legal principles involved by observing that courts has held employers liable for harassment by supervisors especially when the harassment is done by those in charge of hiring, firing, and promoting. The decision was also reach by the decision makers who considered the interactions of past sexual harassment cases, referring to its guidance in Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 106 S.Ct. 2399

An employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts or omissions his employee commits during the course and scope of his employment under the doctrine of respondeat superior. In order for an employer to be liable there must be evidence that during the time of the negligent or omitted act, there was a master-servant relationship. Studebaker v. Nettie 's Flower Garden, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 229 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992); Jones v. Brashears, 107 S.W.3d 445 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003); Bargfrede v. American Income Life Ins. Co., 21 S.W.3d 160 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 359 (Mo. 1963). Respondent superior applies when the master had the right or the power to control and direct the conduct of another. Bargfrede, 21 S.W.3d at 162. The master-servant relationship arises when the person charged as a master has the right to direct the method by which the master 's service is performed. Id.

Explain how respondeat superior and vicarious liability applies to employees of a health care facility. Include how these doctrines will apply not only to direct care givers but to office personnel and administration as well.

WAYNE COUNTY and Wayne County Sheriff's Department, Defendants–Appellants, Sergeant Kenneth Darwish, Corporal Nettie Jackson, Sheriff Warren C. Evans, and Deputy Reginald Johnson, Defendants. Docket No. 139505. -- July 29, 2011 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-supreme-court/1576111.html This case started when the plaintiff Tara K. Hamed was arrested for child support in Michigan and was approached by defendant Reginald Johnson to give him sexual favors so she could have more priveledges jail. The plaintiff refused and then Mr. Johnson to her to an area where there were no surveillance cameras and sexually assaulted her. The plaintiff filed a case and Mr. Johnson was terminated. It was determined that the defendant created a hostile environment for Ms. Hamed. As the case went on the court found no evidence of her claims and dismissed her case. The plaintiff had to make an appeal because Mr. Johnson used his authority to perpetrate the harassment. The court ruled that Wayne county was not liable because Mr. Johnson acted on his own criminal behavior. They applied the Brown vs. Brown principle where the employer is not vicariously liable for the assault because the act was unforeseeable. And the fact that the defendant had no prior criminal background. They explained: [An employer] cannot reasonably anticipate that an employee's lewd, tasteless comments are an inevitable prelude to rape if those comments did not clearly and unmistakably

An employer is liable for the actions of his employee unless they fall outside the scope of employment. Williams v. Community Drive-In Theater, Inc., 520 P.2d 1296, [p. 1297] (Kan. 1974). To fall inside the scope, the employee’s actions must (1) arise naturally from the course of their jobs and (2) intend to further employer’s interest and not done for personal reasons. Daugherty v. Allee’s Sports Bar & Grill, 260 S.W.3d 869, [p. 873] (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Employers who fail to prevent sexual harassment may also face the financial costs of sick pay for employees who become ill, and legal bills from court actions brought against them. It is the duty of the employer to ensure that the workplace is free from sexual