Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Hostile Work Environment: According to the 1993 decision of the United States Supreme Court in "Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc.," hostile environment harassment occurs when "the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment" (Cross and LeRoy Miller 497). Facts of the Case: In 1986, Teresa Harris, who was employed as a rental manager with Forklift Systems, Inc., complained about comments and behaviors directed to her by Forklift's president, Charles Hardy. She claimed that Hardy's sexually harassing conduct caused her to suffer PTSD-like symptoms and that she was ready to resign when Hardy apologized and claimed he was only kidding. Later, after concluding that the harassment would not stop, she left Forklift and filed her complaint with the EEOC. The case was eventually heard by a U.S. magistrate judge whose report and recommendations were adopted by the district court. The district court concluded that Hardy was crude and vulgar, that Harris was the subject of a continuing pattern of sex-based derogatory conduct by Hardy, that Harris had been offended by the conduct, and that the conduct would have offended a reasonable manager. Nevertheless, the court concluded that Harris did not suffer serious psychological injury and therefore, Hardy's conduct did not create a hostile work environment. Based on this finding, the case was dismissed. Harris appealed to the Sixth Circuit which affirmed the district court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari (American Psychological Association "Harris v. Forklift Inc.")
Issue of the Case: Whether a sexual harassment plaintiff must prove not only that the conduct complained of would have offended a reasonable victim, and that the plaintiff was in fact offended, but also that the conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer serious psychological injury. Rule: The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reiterated its earlier decisions that conduct which is merely offensive does not violate Title VII. Title VII comes into play before the harassing conduct leads to a nervous breakdown, and severe or pervasive discriminatory conduct, even if it...
Forklift Inc."). Conclusion: Accordingly, a plaintiff alleging sexual harassment need not demonstrate any concrete psychological harm. The challenged conduct must be sufficient to create an objectively hostile or abusive working environment -- an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive. This formulation rejected, at least implicitly, the "reasonable woman" or "reasonable victim standard" proposed by some lower courts and the EEOC (American Psychological Association "Harris v. Forklift Inc.").
Conclusion: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. In certain instances, differential treatment is allowed, for example in the area of gender, if it is a bona fide occupational qualification. Currently, the Title VII doesn't include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, federal legislation adding sexual orientation as a protected class against discrimination (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), has been proposed in recent years. Many states have employment discrimination and harassment laws as well and may include even more protected classes -- such as marital status and sexual orientation -- than Title VII covers (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Title VII 1).
Works Cited List
American Psychological Association "Harris v. Forklift Inc." 2011.
Accessed 3 December 2011.
< www.apa.org > About APA > Directorates and Programs>
Cross, Frank. B, and LeRoy Miller, R. "Employment Discrimination." The Legal Environment of Business. Mason: South- West Cengage Learning, 2011
493-512. Print version taken from Amazon "Books": Look Inside: The Legal Environment of Business. 493-512. Accessed 3 December 2011
You +1'd this publicly. Undo Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Homepage. 2011.
Accessed 2 December 2011.
Cached
Cached - SimilarSexual Harassment Policy and Complaint Procedures. 1-5. Accessed 2 December…
Works Cited List
American Psychological Association "Harris v. Forklift Inc." 2011.
Accessed 3 December 2011.
< www.apa.org > About APA > Directorates and Programs>
Cross, Frank. B, and LeRoy Miller, R. "Employment Discrimination." The Legal Environment of Business. Mason: South- West Cengage Learning, 2011
Generally, this is the case when a person's job puts them at increased risk for violence, such as when that person is a cashier. Casino employees already work in an environment that increases the potential for violence; casinos generally feature a lot of money on the premises, a substantial amount of drinking alcohol on the premises, and people who have lost a significant amount of money. Due to these
Civil Rights Act of 1964 was landmark legislation in the United States. The original purpose of the Bill was to protect black men from job-related and other discrimination, but it was later expanded to include protection for women. As a result, it provided political momentum for feminism. This Act prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment. The Jim Crow laws in the South were finally discarded, and
Only with the passage of the Civil Rights Act 1964 and Voting Rights Act 1965 did the legacy of 'Jim Crow' truly end, many years after Plessy v. Ferguson was declared legally invalid in Brown. These two acts gave legislative 'teeth' to the Brown decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The 1965 Act, signed into law by the Southern President Lyndon B. Johnson, outlawed literacy tests and poll taxes and
Case AnalysisCase 1: Palmateer v. International Harvester Company,85 Ill. 2d 124, 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981)Parties: In the case of Palmateer v. International Harvester Company, the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company.Facts: The facts of the case revolved around the plaintiff's claim that he had been wrongfully terminated from his position for helping law enforcement by being essentially a whistleblower on the company.Issue: The issue at stake was whether
Civil Rights Act of 1964 enforced the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution by ensuring a legislative act that would prevent discrimination and extend equal protection under the law. The bill in its entirety protects all Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, national background, and gender. It was and still is considered to be a landmark bill, in spite of the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment already technically guarantees equal protection
Equal Employment Opportunity and Employee Rights Review List a: Civil Rights Act of 1964 & ADA The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to prohibit discrimination in the workplace, schools, and other arenas. The law protected historically discriminated-against groups such as women, religious groups, and other ethnic minorities. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 expanded the protections of the original Civil Rights Act to include disabilities. However, what constitutes a