Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
Name:
Instructor:
Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
Comments on the Judge’s Ruling
In my opinion, I support the ruling by the judge to acknowledge that the claims made in the pre-trial motion by the plaintiff, Miss Darcy were valid and presented sufficient facts that could be presented before a jury with the intention of proving the three main elements. These elements are as follows: that Miss Darcy was sexual harassed, that Clarence was Darcy’s supervisor and that Big Car Company presented a hostile working environment. Case law proposes that communication with sexual innuendo cannot be considered a significant incident of sexual harassment in the workplace (Kane-Urrabazo, 2007). Making offensive jokes and teasing their colleagues cannot constitute a genuine claim of sexual harassment without the evidence of other actions (Cushman, & Supreme Court Historical Society, 2011). However, sufficient evidence showed that Clarence made lewd remarks at Miss Darcy and touched her inappropriately on several occasions. These two actions constituted sexual harassment making Miss Darcy’s claims indisputable. The work environment at Big Car Company was also portrayed as ‘hostile’. This originated from the fact that Miss Darcy made several formal complaints to the management that failed to respond satisfactorily. Therefore, her claims of sexual harassment seemed disputable. Lastly, the plaintiff’s lawyer presented sufficient evidence that placed the accused, Clarence in an official role that could be considered a direct supervisor. Based on these three reasons, I am compelled to support the judges’ decision to go to full trial.
Juror’s Decisions for the Three Counts
Concerning the first element, I would conclude that Clarence acted in the capacity of a direct supervisor. The plaintiff’s attorney pointed out that even though Clarence was not officially employed in the position of a supervisor, he enjoyed and administered the power and privileges of one. Arguing from this point, I would consider that Clarence was acting as Miss Darcy’s supervisor because he guided the activities of a large number of employees at Big Car Company. Clarence had several responsibilities including assign different tasks and monitoring the level of productivity among the workers. Furthermore, Clarence was also influential in the transfer of employees in the organization.
Concerning the issue of a hostile workplace environment, I am inclined to agree that Big Car Company presented a hostile environment. Miss Darcy’s complaints were handled in a dismal manner that failed to solve the sexual harassment problem (Zigarelli, 1997). The human relations department took over 6 months to consider her claims of workplace sexual harassment while the company’s management failed to act on the claims. The company acknowledged that Clarence was engaging in indecent behavior and even reprimanded him sternly on his conduct. By penalizing the employee, it was evident that Big Car Company was acknowledging a violation of workplace code of ethics was committed. This was similar to the Faragher v. City of Boca Raton case (Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 1999)
Concerning the issue of sexual harassment, I am bound to conclude that the Clarence’s actions could constitute sexual harassment. From the oral depositions and complaints filed by the plaintiff, there was sufficient proof that Clarence engaged in inappropriate behavior such as using obscene words and gestures as well as invading Miss Darcy’s private space in a sexual manner. These utterances by Clarence were repeated for a significant duration that would have caused the plaintiff sufficient stress and contribute towards lower productivity. Therefore, Clarence’s actions in the workplace could constitute the standard sexual harassment (Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc, 1997). Based on these three arguments, it is sufficient to conclude that the plaintiff was indeed sexually harassed, that Clarence was the direct supervisor of the plaintiff and that Big Car Company allowed the existence of a hostile work environment.
References
Cushman, C., & Supreme Court Historical Society. (2011). Supreme Court decisions and women’s rights: Milestones to equality. Washington, D.C: CQ Press.
Employment Law-Employer Vicariously Liable for Supervisor’s Sexual Harassment-Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998). (1999). Suffolk University Law Review, 33, 193-200.
Kane-Urrabazo, C. (2007). Sexual harassment in the workplace: it is your problem. Journal of Nursing Management, 15, 6, 608-613.
Maraist, C. M. (1997). Faragher v. City of Boca Raton: An Analysis of the Subjective Perception Test Required by Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. Louisiana Law Review, 57, 4, 1343.
Zigarelli, M. A. (1997). Clarifying the Boundaries of Sexual Harassment and Employer Liability: Judicial Application of Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 10, 1, 49-63.