Varna V. National Super Market Harassment Case Study

655 Words2 Pages

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

Open Document