You Decide Week 6 Essay

1992 WordsFeb 4, 20138 Pages
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 that 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 that apply and any precedent cases either for or against Teddy's case that impact liability. Include your opinion of the "worst case" of damages the company may have to pay to Virginia. | | | Student Answer: | | Mr. Moore, As per your request as to whether Teddy’s Supplies is potentially liable for the harassment charges the answer is “Yes”. Your company is liable for the conduct of your employees. You have a sexual harassment policy in place…show more content…
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 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
Open Document