Teddy’s Supplies’ CEO Essay
Teddy’s Supplies’ CEO
Mr. Moore it is in my firm opinion that you settle this case so your company can move on and not be impacted on this matter any longer. I feel the longer this plays out the longer your company could suffer financially and publicly. You need to get in front of this and have the press stopped. In my opinion you are looking at worst case scenario of damages by this case could be exponential. You company still has legal fees for any and all attorneys you are hiring to fight this battle. You are having to pay more in Public Relations to stay in the fore front of press. You are not only going to have to pay out money you could possibly lose money. Since the word is out you could lose contracts, and as well as any customers that may do business with you just base on the perception of the company. You will have to pay unemployment charge backs, as well as your unemployment rates are going to increase. If you will look into Case In the Matter of Reuben Starishevsky, Petitioner, v. Hofstra University et al., Respondents. This shows how a company/ organization can lose the appeal and have to reinstate the employee’s job along with back pay. I suggest you look this over and put a game plan together with your attorney on how to overcome in your case. The circuit court overturned the decision of the NJ Human Rights Commission that had found that Pollard was the victim of sexual harassment and disparate treatment.
Please answer these questions: Define sexual harassment, including both quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment. Which type(s) do you feel Pollard was a victim of (if either)? Provide law or a case to support your position. If you feel Pollard was not a victim of harassment in this case, explain why you feel that way, and provide law or a case to support your position. 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. Explain whether you think that case applies to Pollard’s case (why or why not) and whether you would want to use this case in Teddy’s favor or whether Pollard may use it in her favor. Include the citation to the case and a link to it online. Do you agree that Pollard was disparately treated? Why or why not? In your answer, define disparate treatment. Does the existence of a sexual harassment policy provide a defense to Teddy’s in this case? Why or why not? (Include the name and citation of at least two federal or state sexual harassment cases that provide precedent support to your defense statement.)
Quid pro quo harassment typically occurs when a supervisor makes a request for a sexual favor in return for giving an employee an employment-related benefit: a raise, a promotion or a positive job review, for instance. Quid pro quo harassment can consist of a single or numerous sexual advances or demands. Quid pro quo harassment typically occurs when a supervisor makes a request for a sexual favor in return for giving an employee an employment-related benefit: a raise, a promotion or a positive job review, for instance. It may involve a direct or implied threat of retaliation if the employee does not agree to the request. This case should not fall under either case. I do not feel that this is a quid pro quo case due to the fact that there was not a manager involved in the harassment. As well that I do not think that the hostile work environment should hold, due to the fact that this is a reoccurring event with this staff and that she was involved in many acts and not that she had claimed a case on. In the case of GEORGETTA KINNISON, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. Facts of the case are that Georgetta filed a complaint against Advanced Auto Parts, and Russell Pitts the store manager alleged that she was offered a job at the store.
She compiled all the paperwork to commence her employment. Part of her training she had to come to the store in the morning so she would be familiar to the opening procedures. Once she arrived there the Manager wanted her to engage in other acts of sexual Nature. She then refused and stated she was just wanted to work at Advanced Auto. Advanced Auto was trying to say that since she did not have hours, she was not technically an employee of the company. The individual who is denied a job because he or she declined to submit to the sexual demands of the potential employer also has standing to bring a claim on a theory of quid pro quo harassment, however, because the denial of employment is an employment decision affecting the individual. See Ohio Admin Code 4112-5-05(J)(7) [**8] 1 . Because of this, status as an employee at the time the sexual demands are made is not necessarily a prerequisite to maintaining a cause of action for gender discrimination on the basis of quid pro quo harassment. 2003-Ohio-3387; 2003 Ohio App. LEXIS 3055; 92 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 314.
Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic. I think this is case could apply as a defense and they can use it showing that the employee was not sexual harassed quid pro quo. In disparate treatment the employee must show that he or she was treated differently than other employees who don’t share the same protected characteristic. Similarly situated the comparable employees were and whether the employer’s decision was made because of the employee’s protected characteristic or for other reasons. I do feel that she was treated differently since she was a female, but I do not think that she opposed this treatment and was having just as much fun as everyone else was. I do not think that she has a case. I feel that if she ultimately felt that they was wrong doing she would have filed a complaint with her supervisor or even filled out the online form when she first encountered the first act. Having a policy does not guarantee that an employer is free from liability if a harassment case is brought against the company.
In Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp. the Court ruled that that whether a plaintiff’s complaints to the harasser constitute reasonable availment of an employer’s sexual harassment policy is to be determined by the specific facts and circumstances of each case, regardless of there being a policy in place. Review the sexual harassment policy that Teddy’s has in place and that Virginia Pollard signed. Virginia Pollard claims she had planned to make an anonymous complaint but the website allowing that was down on the day she tried to do so. During the Human Rights Commission case, a review of the website statistics shows that Virginia accessed the website for downloading dental coverage forms at least three times during the time frame of the alleged discrimination. The commission determined that this ability of Teddy’s to track employees’ use of the site was a violation of their anonymity and therefore refused to consider this information. The circuit court did consider this in their decision. Provide three recommendations to the CEO for a way to ensure that employees in the future cannot claim “technical issues” for why they didn’t make a complaint. Explain, in your recommendations, the legal consequences to an employee if they do not utilize the complaint mechanism of the sexual harassment policy. Support these recommendations with current case law.
In reviewing the policy in place and the chain of commands to which to file a complaint. I can see where there could be some changes. Three recommendations that the company could put into place would be to ensure there is a tracking protocol and log kept of any and all downtime that has occurred with the website, that my hinder people accessing the site. Have another way to file a complaint such as a hotline the employees could call in whether there is a site outage or that an employee may not have internet access. Make sure this is training and a program put into place so the employees both female and male both feel comfortable to file a claim. Make sure they know that in the event they fail to file the correct paperwork or fail to notify a supervisor or upper-management of such event that they forfeit their right to sue the company. Two cases that show this type of implementation is MELODY G. COBB, APPELLANT v. COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL FOR LEXINGTON-FAYETTE, BOURBON, HARRISON, AND NICHOLAS COUNTIES, INC. AND WILLIAM F. HINTON, APPELLEES and EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. THE FINISH LINE, INC., Defendant.
These supervisors did not promote a hostile environment, but have the authority to hire, fire, and discipline the employees as deemed necessary. How would Pollard’s case be impacted if her replacement had been a female? Would her case be different? Would her damages be different? Explain your answer. I do not think that would change anything in the case. I feel that she would have filed the same suit and the company would be in the same standing even if they hired another female to replace her. I think she is just upset that someone filed a complaint against her and now she is trying to retaliate and say that she was the victim in the situation. If she really felt as though she was a victim she would have initially filed a complaint or told a supervisor. She already had a history of not following the rules of the company by making personal phone calls while at work.