The workplace environment is made up of many levels of employees who engage and
interact on a daily basis. This interaction creates an energy that circulates throughout the different departments and formulates a tone. Of all the departments that co-exist in a workplace environment, the human resource department has the most important job of overseeing administrative tasks and benefits as well as employee relations such as enforcing the rules that make up the inner workings of the employment structure. When this structure is corrupt or controlled by members ruled by bias, power and convenience, many problems can arise. The Supreme Court case Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville serves as a learning tool on what concepts are acceptable and correct under the law when conducting workplace investigations revolving around discrimination and harassment. Although cooperation in workplace investigations is encouraged, fear of retaliation in the form of termination stops employees from being vocal about discrimination and harassment due to corrupt management and human resource practices,
…show more content…
which violates employee rights under the law. Vicky Crawford was an employee of Metro school district for over 30 years and served as a payroll coordinator.
According to the Oklahoma City University Law review (2009), “The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee…began investigating the conduct of employee Gene Hughes…following a complaint of sexual harassment by another employee” (p 3) which was not Vicky Crawford. Due to the fact that no one filed a complaint through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the investigation was picked up by the district’s human resource department. Further examination was conducted through a “…series of interviews with nine employees” (Law Review, 2009, p 3) with Ms. Crawford being one of the nine individuals. During the review of these allegations of sexual harassment, the employees were asked questions surrounding the accusations against
Hughes. In the midst of these interrogations, “Crawford described several instances of inappropriate conduct by Hughes (Law Review, 2009, p 3). Once interviewed, Hughes denied all allegations against him and the case was closed based on the conclusion that …”Hughes had behaved inappropriately to some extent (Law Review, 2009, p 3) but no disciplinary action was taken against Hughes. On the same day that the interviews concluded, Metropolitan immediately began to investigate Crawford on the grounds of suspicion of embezzlement. Shortly thereafter the new investigation against Crawford was brought about, she was put on administrative leave and following a hearing she was terminated from her position as a payroll coordinator. Due to the termination factor, Crawford filed an anti-retaliation suit against Metropolitan under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, according to the law under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “forbids retaliation by employers against employees who report workplace race or gender discrimination (Crawford v. Metropolitan, 2009). Crawford supported her claims of retaliation by citing that she was fired due to her participation in the investigation against Hughes. The District Court granted its motion in favor of Metropolitan’s judgment. Crawford appealed this decision to the Supreme Court which ruled in her favor aligning ”…Crawford’s behavior with a widely understood meaning …if someone is asked to state their opinion of an activity, and responds by expressing disapproval, surely that person is “opposing” the activity” (Law Review, 2009, p 5). Vicky Crawford was singled out and wrongfully terminated because of her participation in an investigation at her workplace. At this point it is important to point out that Vicky Crawford was not the employee that formally brought these charges against Hughes but cooperated willingly in the investigation as she was sought out by the investigating parties. Mentioning this is crucial to the point of the because according to the Oklahoma City University Law Review(2009) “… the Sixth Circuit had previously held that Title VII provides protection for an employee participating in an employer’s internal investigation only where that investigation occurs pursuant to a pending EEOC charge…”(p 3). Crawford did not file her claim in accordance with the EEOC so it was determined by the court that she was not protected under the law. The fact that Crawford was not included under the protection of this regulation is a clear indicator that rules and regulations should be shown constant attention to ensure that they uphold and protect the appropriate parties involved when necessary. Prevention measures in the workplace against discrimination and harassment of any kind are important to have, but due to the fact that it is impossible to avoid situations of this caliber from occurring; what happens after the situation transpires is just as significant. During the interview process, Crawford as well as several other women brought it to human resource’s attention that on several occasions she was sexually harassed by Hughes. According to Lieber (2001) management consistently fails to take reports from concerned employees seriously or implement extra precautions (p 84). In the incident surrounding Crawford, her willingness to participate in the investigation at the request of her employer, cost her greatly resulting in termination from her work position that she held for 30 years. Management’s position should have been to offer guidance and coping method as soon as the allegations were brought to light instead of alienating the alleged victims. Under the human resources department, there are many subdivisions that make up the agency as a whole, but each division is connected due to the fact that it deals with the interaction between the employees and employer. The investigation that Crawford participated in was against the Director of Human Relations. This particular job is under the department of human resources and therefore should have been a conflict of interest for the human resource department to conduct the investigation in the first place. A simple solution to this would have been to use an outside source to oversee the investigation process. This would alleviate the issue of having bias opinions and would ensure a fair investigation on everyone’s behalf. According to Orr (2004), “A company's HR…can better concentrate on acquiring and retaining talent, lending enhanced credence to the maxim: Employees are a company's most valuable asset” (p 16). Assigning difficult situations to be investigated by an independent supplier keeps the department and everyone involved as neutral as possible while everything gets sorted out. Keeping the focus on the systematic duties of the human resource department would also lessen the distressing mood of personnel and a feeling of having to choose sides. Another prevention tool that should be utilized to prevent issues from reaching the court level is having and following proper protocol when it comes to investigating suspicions that can lead to termination. Hughes was facing serious allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination. His case was investigated by colleagues and fellow employees that he interacted with on a daily basis. Because of this, Hughes’s job was not in jeopardy. Crawford gave her accounts of sexual harassment against her co-worker who was in a position of higher authority and was investigated immediately after on claims of embezzlement. Although these claims were never proven to be true, Crawford was terminated. As members of the human resource department, there is a “…managerial obligation to take action that protects and improves both the welfare of society as a whole and the interest of the organization” (Certo, 2014, p 96). The actions taken against Crawford did not reflect actions of improvement or honesty. In fact, it only proves that this particular system is corrupt and only favors those have connections or ties with the administration in power to make decisions. . It is a terrifying reality to know that one may not be protected under the law if they are wrongfully terminated and discriminated against. Vicky Crawford’s situation is one of many types of discrimination that happens every day all over the world. Her case gave a voice and a step in the right direction to protect the employees against unjust claims and retaliation for speaking up against discrimination and harassment against higher ranked employees. Improving the procedures and policies in human resource policies makes for a smoother daily operation free from lawsuits that can cost reputation and money. Crawford’s case a grave reminder of what can go wrong when doing the right thing but most importantly, it shows that changes can occur when you stand firm behind laws that may not have originally been there to protect you. References Anonymous. (2012). Using Outsourcing to Transform Human Resource Functions. Healthcare Financial Management, 66(1), E1-E8. 34 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 591. Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic Costello, Michael. (2011). Crawford's expansive definition of "oppose" breathes new life into pure third-party retaliation claims under Title VII. Seattle University Law Review, 34(2), 553-576. Haddad,L. , & Bennigson, C., (2006 , December 07). Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville. Retrieved February 20, 2017 , from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-1595_0 Kaifeng Jiang, Lepak, David P., Jia Hu, & Baer, Judith C. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A metaanalytic investigation of mediating mechanisms.(Report). Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1264. Orr, J. (2004). Outsourcing Human Resources. Chief Executive, (199), 16. Vicky S. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, No. 555 U.S. slip op. at 1 (January 29, 2009)(Https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/06-1595.pdf, Dist. file).
Based on the case what are two defenses against sexual harassment that can be used by an employer?
Name & citation of case: Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 870 F. Supp. 1558 (D. CO 1994)
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Facts: On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over the fence he would get away and also “figured” that Garner was unarmed. Officer Hymon then shot him, hitting him in the back of the head. In using deadly force to prevent the escape of Garner, Hymon used the argument that actions were made under the authority of the Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. Although the department’s policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute it still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. Garner’s fathers’ argument was made that his son was shot unconstitutionally because he was captured and shot possessing ten dollars that he had stolen and being unarmed showing no threat of danger to the officer. The incident was then reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm’s Revie...
.... Madison was applied to this decision because the actions committed were unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court the 8th Amendment was broken because the District Court of Appeal was giving a cruel and unusual punishment to Graham. The 8th amendment claus does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in jail without a parole for a non-homicidal crime. Therefore Terrance could not fall through with this punishment.
This case involves a sophomore at a high school named Christine Franklin, who alleged that she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher and sports coach by the name of Andrew Hill. These allegations were occurring from 1986-1988, a total of two years. These allegations included Hill having explicit conversations with Franklin, forcing her to kiss him, and forceful intercourse on school grounds. Franklin claimed that she let teachers and administrators know about the harassment and that other students were going through the same harassment. The result of telling the teachers and administrators was that nothing was done about the situation and even encouraged Franklin not
In the case of McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 404 F.3d 418 (2005), there was an internal investigation of the police department of “improper use of police scanners to eavesdrop on cordless phones and cellphones” (Diagle, 2012 para.10), which involved many officers. Police officer McKinley was interviewed two times. The first time McKinley was interviewed it was about the investigation, and the second time was about allegations that he was untruthful during the first interview, both times he was questioned he was under the Garrity Warnings. By the time of the second interview, McKinley was already “under criminal investigation for lying” (Diagle, 2012, para. 10), and during the second interview it was made clear to McKinley that it was about
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) is a more recent case that still fights against one of history?s most common topics; equal rights. This will always stand as one of the greatest problem factors the world will face until eternity. These issues date back for years and years. This case was brought to the Supreme Court in 2004 for a well-known topic of sexual discrimination. It helped to define the importance of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
The names and sex of all of the Junior Executive Secretaries that were terminated are important to this case. A wrongful termination, Title VII claim was brought against Greene’s. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states, individuals are protected against discrimination on bases of sex, religion, race, color, and national origin. Knowing all of the terminated Junior Executive Secretaries sex, can determine whether there was a male employee terminated as well. A male working within that title would suggest Greene’s did not terminate Ms. Lawson due to her
Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay agree on the need for a tariff on manufactured imports after 1824 because the goal of the tariff was to tax the produce of foreign industry, with the view of promoting American industry. The tariff was associated with manufactured goods. This system will force capital and labor into new employments for the successful establishment of manufacturers. Henry Clay was a strong nationalist and warhawk from Kentucky. He won the election to the House of Representatives in 1810. As a candidate for president in 1824, Clay proposed the American System. He used this system to ensure an integrated national economy in which the protective tariff would allow domestic manufacturing to take place while it generated revenues
Women in the work place are usually poised, well dressed put together individuals and some are more attractive than others. They are most likely qualified for the job they have obtained since the multitude of degrees women can get is the same as men. In today’s society women are stepping more into male dominated jobs such as police officers, doctors, military personal, and even geologists. Ms. Jane Asher working in an all-male office as a geologist, probably knows all of the challenges she would face. Her challenges would most likely include equal pay, fair treatment and sexual harassment. Therefore, Ms. Asher has claimed to have been sexually harassed on her job by her boss and co-workers. Sexual harassment is a serious offense that could lead to another serious offense like rape. However, Ms. Asher brought five pieces of evidence to use in order to testify against the men who she has claimed to have sexually harassed her in her work place. Although, some of the evidence she brought to justify her claim are not strong enough to prove her case to be true. Even though, Ms. Asher’s claim of sexual harassment was
In January 2011, The City of Kansas City, MO lost its second multi-million dollar employment discrimination lawsuit in a one-week period. The former city employees, Jordan Griffin and Coleen Low, were awarded $345,000 and $517,000 respectively by the jury. Griffin, a former Senior Analyst and Commissioner of Revenue, says she was given the nickname “White Chocolate” in the false belief she would favor minority hires. She also says she was harassed when she refused to participate in the biased-hiring process and was overlooked for an interview for the Commissioner of Revenue position on a permanent basis because it was already “pre-determined” that the position would be filled by an African American. When the then Senior Analyst Low spoke up on her colleague’s behalf, she says the city laid her off as well. The city’s, assistant attorney, said the city did nothing wrong and that the city was forced to layoff another 73 people that year due to the slump in the economy (Evans). Did Griffin and Low deserve the money they were compensated and does reverse discrimination exist?