Harassment Case Sexual Harassment at Teddy\'s Supplies:

Harassment Case

Sexual Harassment at Teddy's Supplies: Case Analysis

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.

Memorandum

As an independent council for Teddy's Supplies, my immediate recommendations would be to agree to a financial settlement awarding damages to Pollard. It seems clear according to the decisions rendered by the NJ Human Rights commission that Pollard was the victim of gender discrimination and sexual harassment. Moreover, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a culture of gender discrimination and sexual harassment were both allowed and encouraged by upper-management to the extent that Pollard had no realistic recourse against this treatment. Her dismissal and a lack of similar mediation for male workers guilty of relative infractions underscore this reality.

These conditions seems to be in direct conflict with the terms of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII defines sexual harassment as any gender-based discrimination that creates an uncomfortable, hostile or unequal workplace for an individual or a group of individuals. (EEOC, p. 1) The pattern of treatment visited upon Pollard indicates that within the scope of this definition, sexual harassment most certainly occurred and that unequal policy response also occurred in the form of her dismissal. This denotes that liability exists for Teddy's Supplies and that this liability will likely demand the payment of damages that can include lost wages and punitive damages.

2. The NJ Human Rights commission found that Pollard was the victim of sexual harassment and disparate treatment. Please answer these questions:

a. Provide the most current definition of "sexual harassment," including a definition of quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment. Name an appellate court case in which an employer was found liable for either quid pro quo or hostile environment sexual harassment. Describe the facts of the case and the decision the court came to in the case. Include the citation to the case and a link to it online. Would the case apply to Pollard's case? Why or why not? Would you want to use this case in Teddy's favor or Pollard's favor?