In pursuing the facts of the case I think Teddy's is having a written sexual harassment policy and a method for employees to report sexual harassment -- either to the supervisor or in secret by using the www.ReportTeddysafely.com. As an employer some of the necessities stipulated by law have been followed. The Supreme Court defined two principles regarding the sexual harassment at the workplace. Firstly the employer is liable for harassment vicariously. In Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998), and in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998) and thus the courts held that the employer is always liable for a supervisor's harassment if "it culminates in a tangible employment action. However, if it does not, the employer may be able to avoid liability or limit damages by establishing affirmative defenses that includes two necessary elements." (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1999)
One is reasonable care, which is having taken steps to prevent harassment, secondly the employee failed to take advantage of the "preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise." (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1999) In this case no doubt there would have been harassment against Virginia, but she failed to report it. There were many methods to do so in the company policy. Therefore that is a defense. Virginia may not be able to claim damages for being ousted because the dismissal was based on her own sexual behavior. In the worst case no exemplary damages may result. The amount cannot be exactly fixed but would be reasonable in case the case was lost.
2. A. Define sexual harassment, including both quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment
The quid pro quo harassment was defined in Singleton V.U.S. Gypsum Co (2006). The type of harassment includes sexual advances, passes and other forms of lewd advances that pertain to sexual overtures. The other type involves not the sexual aspect but is discriminatory in gender. It is based on the behavior towards the complainant making the work place a hostile environment. Thus in this case there need not be any sexual advances whatsoever. The hostile work environment is wherein the harassment is such that which alter the conditions of employment and create an unworkable situation is the hostile type of harassment. It is also retreated in Valdez v. Clayton Industries, Inc. case (2001).
Pollard unfortunately was the victim of both. Hart v. National Mortgage & Land Co., supra, 189 Cal. App.3d 1420. (Mogilefsky v. Superior court of Los Angeles City, 1993) The fact was "that her co-workers taped her drawers shut.. backed a forklift up to the door and made it backfire in her ear… Teddy delivery driver.. bent her over his lap and spanked her." All this are of the hostile environment type. The sexual harassment is when warehouse workers put a sign on a truck that read "HARDHAT REQUIRED/BRA OPTIONAL and Pollard was asked over to look at the sign and encouraged her to do as it said." (Mogilefsky v. Superior court of Los Angeles City, 1993) But the aspect is different when she complied by lifting one side of her shirt in the back and exposed part of her bra on her backside. In that case compliance removes the issue of sexual harassment.
2. B. Name an appellate court case in which an employer was found liable for either quid pro quo or hostile environment sexual harassment
It was stated in Yates v. Avco Corp., the plaintiff's supervisors constantly made rude comments to her and repetitively made requests for sexual favors, and this created an unlawful hostile work environment. (Study Guides and Lesson Plans, 1986) Likewise Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson 1986 takes the stand that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 businesses are responsible for sexual discrimination in the workplace and that would always result in economic loss to the victim. (Study Guides and Lesson Plans, 1986) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also says that hostile environment is a form of sexual harassment even if victim had no economic losses.
2. C. Do you agree that Pollard was disparately treated?
Disparate treatment is when one group or one individual is offered lesser conveniences or was subject to discrimination in pay or rank based on gender. In this case the management did not…