You are the independent Human Resources Consultant hired by Teddy's Supplies to help explain to the company what the case against them will entail. You have gleaned the facts from your investigations into the situation to date. You have never talked with Virginia Pollard. The case is currently in the appeals stage and the company executives have some questions for you. Answer them using the most recent legal information you can find.
1. 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 ...view middle of the document...
If not, then Teddy’s is looking to pay a major settlement in this case. Somewhere in the ballpark of $100-$150 thousand.
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? (10 points)
Answer: Sexual harassment is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors. It includes a range of behavior from seemingly mild transgressions and annoyances to actual sexual abuse or sexual assault. Quid pro quo harassment is the most commonly recognized form of sexual harassment. It occurs when job benefits, including employment, promotion, salary increases, shift or work assignments, performance expectations and other conditions of employment, are made contingent on the provision of sexual favors, usually to an employer, supervisor or agent of the employer who has the authority to make decisions about employment actions, or the rejection of a sexual advance or request for sexual favors results in a tangible employment detriment, a loss of a job benefit of the kind described above. Hostile environment sexual harassment refers to a situation where employees in a workplace are subject to a pattern of exposure to unwanted sexual behavior from persons other than an employee's direct supervisor where supervisors or managers take no steps to discourage or discontinue such behavior. Neal v. Manpower International, Inc. and Wayne-Dalton Corp., 2001 WL 1923127 (N.D. Fla.) is the case that I found where Florida’s Appellate Court ruled in the favor of the plaintiff. Ms. Neal was hired to work for Wayne-Dolton through Manpower International, a temporary help company. Her first day on the job June 24, 1999, she was sexually harassed by her supervisor Mr. Woodson. He made statements like; “she looked fine,” “to bend over,” and “what she was doing after work.” One similarity in this case with Mrs. Pollard was neither plantiff notified their supervisor or human resourses of the sexual harassment. Also, they both were congratulated for their performance before they were fired. This case does apply to Mrs. Pollard stance because both employees were harassed by their direct supervisor while at work. I would not use this case as a stance for Teddy’s Supplies.
http://www.southfloridapersonalinjuryblog.com/2010/03/employer_status_for_sexual_har.html
...
