MGMT520 Week 6 - You Decide ES
Teddy's Supplies' CEO has asked you to advise him on the facts of the case and your opinion of their potential liability. He wants to settle the case. 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 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.
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)
b. Explain which form of sexual harassment you suspect the 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. (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 cases that provide precedent 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)
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 can not 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.
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.
No reviews. Be the first to write one!