Sexual Harassment Legal Case Study

Legal Brief

McCurdy v. Arkansas State Police, 375 F. 3 762 (8th Cir. 2004)

Type of Action

The case covered in this legal brief was the case of an employee of the Arkansas State Police, that being McCurdy, filing an action against the State of Arkansas in the form of the Arkansas State Police, that being her employer. Ms. McCurdy was trying to hold the Arkansas State Police liable for the sexual harassment of her supervisor. The case in this legal brief was argued before the United States Eight Circuit Court of Appeals (Leagle, 2014).

Facts of the Case

Jamie McCurdy, while being an employee of the Arkansas State Police, was subjected to about an hour of sexual harassment. The harassment in question was explicitly banned and disallowed as a matter of policy with the Arkansas State Police. On the Friday in which the harassment occurred, Sergeant Hall (McCurdy's supervisor) asked her where her uniform was and also stated that if it was up to him, her uniform would be a "bra and panties." He then touched and twirled McCurdy's hair and asked her if she had any "black" in her. She rejected the advances from Hill and then found a way to leave the room and report the conduct to another office. Upon elevating the details of the event to Sergeant Garner (the highest ranking person on duty) it was decided that the McCurdy and Hill should remain separated for the duration of the weekend until this matter could be sorted out and the appropriate action could be taken. The matter was eventually referred to Internal Affairs rather than being handled internally by that particular group of people. Hall was eventually put on probation, demoted and assigned to a position in which he would have no conduct with McCurdy. However, he was also required to get a psychological evaluation to determine if he was even fit for duty given what he had done. They tried to terminate Hall but it was later overturned. It also came to light that McCurdy had prior harassment that she did not report and thus the police department could not react to it properly and timely given the absence of a complaining witness (IntroLaw, 2014).

Contentions of the Parties

McCurdy asserted that she was subject to a hostile work environment and constant sexual harassment and thus the Arkansas State Policy should be held liable for not controlling and properly punishing the employee. However, the police department argued that they were not able to react as quickly as they would have liked because McCurdy did not diligently report and detail the harassment until it was well under way. As such, the police department asserted that they could not deal with something that they were not aware of and thus should not be held legally liable since they reacted quickly and swiftly based on what they knew to be alleged, when it was alleged, when McCurdy finally decided to come forward (LawMemo, 2014).

Issue

The issue at hand in this was whether the continued harassment of McCurdy by Hall (and perhaps others) made the police department liable based on the fact that it was protracted and insidious in nature or if liability was not assignable because McCurdy did not report the alleged acts even though she was informed of the sexual harassment policy and did not report the illegal actions despite this. In other words, the Arkansas State police asserted that even though Hall and the other males in the police agency were liable to for their sexual harassment under the policy if/when they engage in it, the victims of harassment had a duty to come forward so that the state police could react to the accusations and issue the proper firings, demotions, investigations and so forth (Leagle, 2014).

Decision

The decision of the court was that because the police agency reacted as quickly and as reasonably as they could and because they exercised due diligence in separating them while an impartial and third party (internal affairs) investigation was conducted, it was held that the Arkansas State police did what they could and when they could and thus should not be held liable for what was allegedly done to her. Beyond that, the lack of proper legal due diligence on the part of McCurdy was complicated by the fact that she took a polygraph and the results pertaining to her assertion that her breast was fondled was inconclusive (Leagle, 2014).