Thursday, August 1, 2019

Ethics Hw Week 6

ETHICS HW WEEK 6 ————————————————- 1. | Question:| 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 which 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 which apply and any precedential cases either for or against Teddy's case which impact liability. Include your opinion of the â€Å"worst case† of damages the company may have to pay to Virginia.   | Your Answer:| Memo to CEO: Your company is in fact in liability for negligence in protecting the best interest of your employee, Pollard. Even though she participated in many of the sexual harassment situations your upper management did anything to stop or report any of the activities they were aware of. The people put n charge failed the compan y and Ms Pollard by not being responsible and assuming just as much responsibility as she had in the situation. Per the EEO guidelines: An employer is always responsible for harassment by a supervisor that culminated in a tangible employment action. If the harassment did not lead to a tangible employment action, the employer is liable unless it proves that: 1) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment; and 2) the employee unreasonably failed to complain to management or to avoid harm otherwise An individual qualifies as an employee's â€Å"supervisor† if the individual has the authority to recommend tangible employment decisions affecting the employee or if the individual has the authority to direct the employee's daily work activities. A â€Å"tangible employment action† means a significant change in employment status. Examples include hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, undesirable reassignment, a decision causing a significant change in benefits, compensation decisions, and work assignment Employers should establish, distribute to all employees, and enforce a policy prohibiting harassment and setting out a procedure for making complaints. In most cases, the policy and procedure should be in writing. Small businesses may be able to discharge their responsibility to prevent and correct harassment through less formal means. For example, if a business is sufficiently small that the owner maintains regular contact with all employees, the owner can tell the employees at staff meetings that harassment is prohibited, that employees should report such conduct promptly, and that a complaint can be brought â€Å"straight to the top. † If the business conducts a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation of any complaint that arises and undertakes swift and appropriate corrective action, it will have fulfilled its responsibility to â€Å"effectively prevent and correct harassment http://www. eoc. gov/policy/docs/harassment-facts. html By violating al of the above content we would recommend that Virginia be awarded damages for back pay, a psychological evaluation, a percentage of stocks/shares in the company for future earnings and action disciplinary to be taken against all parties involved| | | Points Received:| 25 of 30 | | Comments:| How did the management fail her? | 2. | Question:| The NJ Human R ights commission found that Pollard was the victim of Sexual Harassment and disparate treatment. Please answer these questions:   a. Provide the most current definition of â€Å"sexual harassment,† including a definition of quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment. Name an appellate  court case where 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)b. Explain which form of sexual harassment that you suspect NJ Human Rights commission found Virginia had been a victim of and why you feel that is the case. 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;  Ã‚  (10 points)c. Explain what defenses to sexual harassment Teddy's had in this case (Include the name and citation of  at least two  federal or state sexual harassment case(s) which provide precedential support to your defense statement. (10 points. )d. What is disparate treatment and why do you think the Human Rights commission found it had occurred? Do you agree with this decision? (10 points. )  |   | Your Answer:| A. The legal definition of sexual harrassment is a form of sex discrimination. The legal definition of sexual harassment is â€Å"unwelcome verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is severe o r pervasive and affects working conditions or creates a hostile work environment. Quid pro quo, a Latin term meaning â€Å"this for that,† occurs when your boss offers you benefits, or threatens to change your working conditions, based on your response to his demands for sexual favors. â€Å"I'll give you a raise if you go out with me†¦. † or â€Å"I'll demote you if you don't have sex with me† are examples of â€Å"quid pro quo† harassment. Hostile environment harassment occurs when physical, verbal, or visual sexual harassment is severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile or abusive work environment. This type of harassment does not require a loss or threat of loss of your job, or the promise of benefits. Comments about your body, sexual remarks, pornographic pictures displayed at the workplace, and touching and grabbing may all create a hostile work environment. In addition, the conduct must be unwelcome to you. If you like, want, or welcome the conduct, then you are not being sexually harassed. And if the conduct does not relate to your sex or have sexual references, it's not sexual harassment. 1998 the Supreme Court decided in Ellerth v. Burlington Industries, No. 7-569 and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, No. 97-282 that companies may be held vicariously liable if supervisors sexually harass workers even if the employees do not report the harassment and suffered no tangible loss. By making employers liable for supervisors' sexual harassment encourages an employer, as no other regime does, to exercise the greatest possible care in screening prospective managers and in training, supervising and monitoring supervisory personnel. It gives employers an incentive to put effective policies and training programs in place. In fact, 54% of Fortune 500 employers admitted in one survey that fears of legal exposure prompted them to establish company policies against harassment. And experience has shown these policies and programs work. Companies that have implemented sexual harassment training programs have reported reduced numbers of claims that develop into lawsuits. http://www. hr-guide. com/data/A07202. htm yes this case would apply to pollards case because in this case too the sexual harassment was not being reported. The companies were too held liable for what was going on with their employers. B. I think they used the basic form of sexual haraasment in th eworkplcae because the boss did not threaten her with sexual advances but condonednthe mistreatment the other male employees had put on her. Even though she did not properly report the abuse I do feel that she was a victim because she encountered several incidents where her right swere violated. C. On June 26th, the U. S. Supreme Court decided the following two cases: Burlington Industries v. Ellerth Facts—The employee, Kimberly Ellerth, worked for Burlington Industries from March 1993-May 1994, as a salesperson in one of Burlington's divisions in Chicago, Ill. During her employment, she claims she was subjected to constant sexual harassment by her supervisor, Ted Slowik. Slowik was a mid-level manager. Burlington has eight divisions, employing more than 22,000 people in 50 plants around the U. S. Slowick was a vice president in one of five business units within one of the divisions. He had authority to make hiring and promotion decisions subject to the approval of his supervisor, who signed the paperwork. Slowik was not Ellerth's immediate supervisor. Ellerth worked in a two-person office in Chicago, and she answered to her colleague, who in turn answered to Slowik in New York. ttp://www. lkorn-law. com/articles/relevent/supreme_decides_sex_har. htm Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, and Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth, the Supreme Court basically stated that the employer is responsible for the actions of the supervisor, even when the employer is unaware of the supervisor’s behavior. An employer can no longer claim that they did not know about the sexual harassment because the employee did not inform them, nor can they claim that they were unaware of the supervisor’s behavior. Out of the two cases listed above the first one is relevant to the case because even though she was disciplined for cell phone usage she was still sent to another area to be subjected to further humiliation by her male co-workers. The second case states where even though the Pollard did not reprt the abuse the supervisor was well aware of what was going on. D. Intentional discriminatory dealing with individuals having a disability or belonging to a particular group based on their age, ethnicity, race, or sex. The Human Rights commssion saw that Pollard was discriminated on due to her sex. Yes I fully agree with their decision. She should be awarded for all damages and future earnings. I would not want that particular job back but one in another area with maybe the same company. Read more: http://www. businessdictionary. com/definition/disparate-treatment. html#ixzz17DKebnxM | | | Points Received:| 40 of 40 | | Comments:| Great that you answered all parts of the question! Also I like that you used the case in which the cell phone discipline took place while it was determined that harassment occurred. This shows that 2 wrongs do not make a right! | 3. Question:| The CEO asks you to review the sexual harassment policy currently in place, which Virginia signed. He wants you to provide him with suggestions for change to it. Review the policy and give three recommendations for changes, enhancements and ideas for making the policy stronger. Include your reasons for these suggestions. If you find information online for making these changes, include citations and/or links to t hat information. Explain how your suggestions may have protected Teddy's in this case. Support these recommendations with current case law.   | Your Answer:| The contract signed by Virginia was vague. It also states that there will be a warning. She was terminated immediately. My suggestion would be to go further by having the employees attend sexual harassment training. They should also offer some type of support for their employees who think they are experiencing it or actually experiencing it. They should also make the supervisors and all employees aware of their no tolerance policy. â€Å"An employer should correct harassment that is clearly unwelcome regardless of whether a complaint is filed. For example, if there is graffiti in the workplace containing racial or sexual epithets, management should not wait for a complaint before erasing it. An employer should ensure that its supervisors and managers understand their responsibilities under the organization's anti-harassment policy and complaint procedures. An employer should screen applicants for supervisory jobs to see if they have a history of engaging in harassment. If so, and the employer hires such a candidate, it must take steps to monitor actions taken by that individual in order to prevent harassment†. An employer should keep records of harassment complaints and check those records when a complaint of harassment is made to reveal any patterns of harassment by the same individuals. http://www. eeoc. gov/policy/docs/harassment-facts. html| | | Points Received:| 18 of 20 | | Comments:| How should the employer â€Å"support † employees? | 4. | Question:| 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.   | Your Answer:| Had Pollard been replaced by a female it would make her case weaker stating that it was her and her character in that position that caused the men to react the way that they did towards her. Replacing her with another male shows guilt on the companies side. Had they not been aware of the situation at hand or been doing something to avoid it, it wouldn't have made a difference if they would have hired another female. Her case would have been different beca use had they hired another female would have shown them being less guilty of any of the accusations against them. ecause they did hire a male, made them look more cautious or even suspicious. I don't know for sure if her damages would have been different but her case would have been. she was awarded damages on the jury thinking she was fired unlawfully. | | | Points Received:| 5 of 10 | | Comments:| Why do we blame the woman? The employer has a duty to protect its employees from harassment – that means the men MUST be required to abstain from harassment – not just work with all men. | Bottom of Form

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.