Business Law: 1. Read the following scenario and answer the question in 5-10 sen
ID: 379909 • Letter: B
Question
Business Law:
1. Read the following scenario and answer the question in 5-10 sentences.
You are the president of a HumTech, a technology consulting company, and have received some startling news. Richard is one of your information technology supervisors. You learn that Richard has been emailing Brenda, an information technology technician who reports to him, pornographic photos and sexually-directed jokes. Brenda told Richard to stop, but Richard continued to send the emails to Brenda. In response to Richard’s conduct, Brenda abruptly quit and filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Preventing sexual harassment has been a major priority for you, and you have established extensive complaint procedures, dispute resolution mechanisms, and sexual harassment prevention policies. You are surprised that Brenda didn’t use these resources before seeking legal redress. Evaluate whether your company may be held liable for Richard’s conduct
Explanation / Answer
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), U.S. states that it is unlawful to harass a person because of that person’s gender. Harassment can be in the form of asking for sexual favours, unwelcome sexual advances and other verbal or physical harassment of sexual nature.
EEOC states that an employer is always responsible for the actions of its supervisors and the employers should have a proper system of harassment prevention and redressal within the organisation. The supreme court of U.S. outlines that an employer is always liable for a supervisor’s harassment acts if it results into a Tangible Employment Action. A tangible employment action refers to a significant change in employment status. For example: hiring, firing, resigning, promotion, demotion, compensation decisions, etc. Only if the harassment has not lead to a tangible employment action, the employer is not held liable if it proves that:
In the given case, Richard continuously harassed his sub-ordinate Brenda by e-mailing her pornographic photos and sexually directed jokes. Even after retaliation from her, he didn’t stopped and as a result Brenda quit the organisation. HumTech has always taken reasonable care in preventing sexual harassment and has established extensive complaint procedures, dispute resolution mechanisms and sexual harassment prevention policies. Although, it is true that Brenda didn’t use the resources available within the organisation before seeking legal redress and instead, abruptly quit the organisation and decided to file a claim with EEOC, HumTech will still be held liable for Richard’s conduct as his act of sexual harassment towards Brenda has resulted into a “Tangible Employment Action” of Brenda quitting the organisation. It may have been reasonable for Brenda to not to complain to the management of HumTech because of a legitimate fear of retaliation by her seniors, peers or sub-ordinates.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.