The harassment suit in the case of Varna v. National Super Markets, the court should find in favor of the Plaintiff, a minor. Pursuant to Varna v. National Super Markets, 94 F.3d 1209, 71 F.E.P. (8th Cir. 1996), the facts of the case are as follows (Walsh, 2013): “A 17-year-old female employee (Plaintiff) was harassed by a coworker. The plaintiff informed her fiance’ who also work at the supermarket. Plaintiff’s fiance reported the incidents to his supervisor twice. The supervisor informed the fiance’ that the coworker being harassed, according to company policy, must make a formal complaint of the incidents to the human resources department. The plaintiff did not make a formal complaint but later sued National Super Markets”(Walsh, 2013). …show more content…
The plaintiff did not report the incident to her supervisor or the human resources department, possibly due to fear. The next morning of the last incident, the plaintiff reported the harassment to the police. Nevertheless, the plaintiff remained working at the store becoming more and more depressed. I do feel that the supervisor had a duty to follow up with the minor employee to ensure her safety. At a minimal, she should have been asked if she was okay, or needed to talk about anything. As a minor, the employer should have taken action against the adult, male employee. More consideration should have been taken in protecting the minor as well as the store’s brand. There is potential negligence on behalf of the supervisors as well as the company. The supervisor should also be held responsible because he was aware and did not take any form of action. It would appear that the supervisor and the harasser both played a part in the behavior. National has attempted to support their claims by indicating the employee failed to comply with the company’s sexual harassment policy. National knew of the harassment and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action. National was aware because the plaintiff’s fiance’ reported the harassment to his supervisor on two separate occasions. The supervisor had the authority and should have informed the human resources department to taken action against the allegations (Vijayasiri, 2008). National policy on sexual harassment should not be any reason for them to not be held liable for negligence. In conclusion, evidence of a hostile work environment, harassment, and negligence on behalf of the defendant is evident in the
(Cheeseman2013) In the National Labor Relation Board v Shop Rite Foods case some employees of Shop Rite Foods of Texas elected a worker union as a Bargaining agent for a collective bargaining agreement for over 3 months the agreement was still not settled. Then ShopRite began to notice a lot of it merchandise being damaged in the warehouse. They determined that the damage was being intentionally being caused by dissident employees as a pressure tactic to secure concessions from the company in the collective bargaining negotiations.
In Chapter 11 of William Shaw’s The Organization and the People in It goes over issue of sexual harassment in the workplace and its effects. Sexual harassment is defined as the “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”, most reports of sexual harassment are from women accusing men however men accusing women is becoming more prevalent in todays society (Shaw, p.444). Sexual harassment is a moral issues because a person becomes a victim by means of verbal comments, gestures, or physical contact of a sexual nature and not being able to refuse them without fear that something worse will happen.
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
The Poniatowska case was indeed a demonstration of not infrequent sexual harassment and discrimination at workplace in Australia. As the findings indicated, the appellant was forced to accept an inappropriately robust working environment and endure various unacceptable conducts as part of her job. In the court proceedings, the judges took reasonably adequate approach, taking into consideration of the broader issues surrounding sexual harassment and discrimination in reaching its decision in favour of the claimant. Great emphasis was put on the appropriateness of the measures taken by the employer to regulate the conduct of employees and address the complaints. The case provides guidance to the employers in that regard.
At Coco’s, we maintain an environment free from physical, psychological and verbal harassment, prohibiting verbal or physical conduct that offends, abuses, intimidates, degrades, or threatens a person using the same criteria as stated above in the EEO policy. No employee shall threaten or insinuate, explicitly or implicitly, that an employee’s “submission to, or rejection of, romantic or sexual advances or requests for sexual favors will influence, either enhancing or adversely affecting”, any term or condition of employment (Guerin & Barreiro, 2016, p. 370). If any employee feels he/she has been discriminated against in violation of this policy, Coco’s procedure is for the employee to immediately report the incident to the Shift Manager and/or CEO of Coco’s Chocolate Café. The right to file an EEO complaint is “protected activity under the law and retaliation against an individual who files a complaint is absolutely prohibited” (EEOC, 2016). The complaint will be thoroughly and confidentially investigated, except where disclosure by law is required, to determine if a violation has occurred. If the investigation finds the claim to be substantiated and a violation occurs, the individuals involved in the inappropriate behavior will be subject to appropriate
Brady case, the reasonable victim was appropriately used. As the case examined the case from the Ellison (Woman’s perspective) in this case the victim. While also considering the male’s perspective, the person standard. Thus, Ellison, was not being overly sensitive, such a situation was causing disturbance in her life, a hostile work environment, and she felt unsafe in her own workplace. Ellison have every right to feel the way she did, her coworker Grey was crossing the line and boundaries by not picking up on body language, continuing to be insistive, and stalking Ellison in a way. It seems that perhaps, Grey had developed an infatuation or obsession with Ellison and was too blind to pick up all the negative signs from Ellison of lack of interest. Grey continued being inappropriate by continuing to write Ellison letters expressing how he felt about her, further, suggesting the illusion of sex, which created a severe and pervasive condition to alter the workplace and thus created an abusive work environment (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). And Ellison may have been guilty of misleading Grey, rather than, being honest and informing that she did not feel the same way about him. However, such confrontation could have been engulfed by Ellison’s feelings of fear and threatened by Grey and what he would do next. Would her life be in danger? Would she become another statistic? Everyone is entitled to feel they way they want to, no one’s feelings should ever be minimized as everyone is
Anna’s claim comes under the broad rubric of the unlawful employment practice of sexual harassment which has become known as “hostile work environment” developed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Roberts, Barry S. and Richard A. Mann. ?Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A Primer.? n.pag. On-line. Internet. 5 Dec 2000. Available WWW:
...ith them by touching her breasts and other body parts and secondly he even threatened them to go on a date else he would get them fired. Both these instances come under the ambit of this law of sexual harassment. The civil rights law forbids the employer to discriminate on the basis of sex (Title VII Statute, n.d.).
3. At the point the harassment of the victim has become so severe that he/she is unable to return to his/her job (Bennadi & Konekeri,
It is stated in an online article titled, “Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace” that, “As an employer, you have a responsibility to maintain a workplace that is free of sexual harassment. This is your legal obligation, but it also makes good business sense. If you allow sexual harassment to flourish in your workplace, you will pay a high price in poor employee morale low productivity, and lawsuits.” (Barreiro, 2016). It is Lael’s obligation to have the best interest of her employees in mind. If she is being exposed to this unethical behavior that is taking place between an superior and an employee and she keeps quiet and refrains from stepping in to address the issue, then she is at fault just as much as Nikhil. By Lael stepping in and getting involved in the reporting would not only show loyalty to her peers, but loyalty to the organization that she holds a high regard
Sexual Harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By federal law, you are protected by any form of harassment or discrimination in the workplace. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) takes any complaint that has been filed with the EEOC and looks at a case as a whole. The determination is based off facts of the incident. It’s important for every employee at MedTech to understand our rights as an employee for more information check the EEOC website at https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
Allison Fetter-Harrott’s article, “Staff-to-Student Sexual Harassment” published by the District Administration discusses that the reasons as to why some schools try to sweep their issues with sexual harassment under the rug is because it “leads to numerous unwanted consequences for the schools on many levels”, leading to parents and students losing confidence in their school. The article starts off by recognizing that while the legal aspects of staff-to-student sexual harassment take a back seat to emotional considerations, the legal framework provides school administrators with a helpful basis for drafting policies, etc (Fetter-Harrott 1). I believe that with the writer taking a stance of knowing that it could sound somewhat insensitive to not talk much about the victims and how they are affected, they are showing that the issue is unacceptable, but what schools need to focus on as well are the things that come with the issue. Just as a middle school teacher would tell their students to write an essay with an introduction, three body paragraphs, and a conclusion, this article practically emulates that. The writer might have taken this approach because her intended audience was more for school districts, being a formal audience rather than the
KANE-URRABAZO, C. (2007). Sexual harassment in the workplace: it is your problem. Journal Of Nursing Management, 15(6), 608-613. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2007.00725.x
The only solution to tackling this situation is to speak up when this situation happens to someone. Encourage the victim of sexual harassment to come forward and report to proper authorities as soon as possible. The longer the victim waits, the less probability that it will be corrected. If there is someone out there that has been a victim of harassment, confront the person regarding the situation. Call for help and consult with your local HR representative or appropriate authority.