Review the Virginia Pollard case information located at the beginning of this project: You Decide ES. (If you click here, you will return to the face-sheet of the project area. To return to this page, click the Begin button again. You can do this all week.) To do well on this project, study the readings for this week and consider the work we did in Week 5. You may want to do some outside research for this project as well, reviewing recent case law on discrimination and harassment and including that in your answers to the project. Do not discuss this project with your classmates. You should do the work on your own. This project is "pooled," meaning your classmates may have different questions ...view middle of the document...
Include in your memo any laws that apply and any precedent cases either for or against Teddy's case that impact liability. Include in the memo your suggested "offer of settlement" to Virginia. Back up your offer using your analysis of the case against Teddy's. (Points: 30)
Dear Mr. Moore,
After reviewing this case, I can state that Teddy’s Supplies is definitely liable for the workplace and sexual harassment against Virginia Pollard. According to the facts, it’s indicated that Ms. Pollard (plaintiff) was placed in a ‘hostile’ environment and Mr. Steve King was her supervisor. Although it is not illegal for 1 woman to work with a group of men, it should be carefully determined by the employer if the environment is suitable for males and females to work together. In this case, it was not a good idea for 1 woman to work with male associates.
• Workplace environment can by justified by 7 ways: race, gender, national origin, religious, color, age and disability. In this case, Pollard was constantly being harassed by her male colleagues. They played pranks on her by locking her drawers shut, filling the guard shack with trash, locking her out of the guard shack and therefore she was not able to perform her job duty since she was responsible for watching warehouse inventory. Also, Ms. Pollard was put into unnecessary risk of harm when a coworker backed a forklift up to the guard shack and it backfire into her ear. Ms. Pollard could have sustained injuries if the forklift had hit her because it weighted 3 tons and it could have easily injured her eardrums because it is very loud.
• Sexual harassment can be conducts that are sexual in nature. In this particular incident, Ms. Pollard was teased by her coworkers as well as one of Teddy’s drivers. The driver taunted her by sitting in her chair and when she asked him to get up, he spanked her while getting up. This shows that there was an obvious form of sexual harassment because Ms. Pollard showed no signs sexual arousement towards the driver that would encourage and provoke him to spank her.
• Hostile environment can be created by manager, supervisor, vendor, etc. It is when an employee is harassed in an unwelcoming / sexual conductive way that impairs with their judgment to work. This case shows that Steve King, Pollard’s supervisor and his colleagues created a hostile environment for her when they put a sign on a truck that said “HARDHAT REQUIRED/BRA OPTIONAL." Then, they told her to do as the sign says Pollard refused and walked away at which time Steve King told her that he wouldn’t report her to management if she went along with their request. Hence, Pollard pull up the back of her shirt and expose her bra. This shows that Pollard wanted to fit in so bad that she would even expose herself.
In conclusion, I recommend that Teddy’s Supplies offer Virginia Pollard her job back and promise her that she will not be attacked in any way at work because Pollard would be a great...