Sexual Harassment Lawsuits - Term Paper Example

Sexual Harassment lawsuits often include wrongful discharge Introduction In modern workplace the conflicts among employees are quite common; in most cases competition is considered to be the main reason for the specific phenomenon. However, there are other issues that seem to cause to employees severe pressure – even leading them to quit. Sexual harassment is among the most usual reasons that employees in firms around the world decide to quit. Despite the fact that this reaction can be characterized as expected taking into account the various aspects of sexual harassment and its influence on a person’s psychology, deciding to quit from the job is not always the most appropriate response to the problem. More specifically, after announcing the relevant decision, an employee has to leave his/ her work without – practical – having any financial claim (compensation, lost benefits and so on) against the employer. Of course, the fact that employee was forced to quit – i.e. that it was not his/ her own willing but the result of the pressure made on him/ her because of specific facts taking place in the workplace – maybe leave space for relevant claims. In law, such a situation is commonly known as constructive wrongful discharge; employees that were forced to quit do not always manage to persuade the court regarding the facts on which their decision was based – i.e. a constructive wrongful discharge is rather difficult to be proved in practice; as a result an employee who suffered sexual harassment can be left with no work and no compensation even if he/ she had no other alternative but to proceed to the specific reaction (i.e. to quit). The specific issue has been extensively examined in the Courts across USA; the court’s decisions tend to vary in accordance with the circumstances of each particular case and the ability of the employee to convince the Court regarding the real facts of the particular conflict. In any case it has been proved that sexual harassment lawsuits are based on their majority on constructive wrongful discharge. 2. Sexual Harassment and constructive wrongful discharge in law The various aspects of sexual harassment are not particular difficult to be understood. They can involve in both verbal and actual harassment that is characterized by sexual references by the other employee’s (including the manager’s) side. The specific issue (sexual harassment is not easy to be described and analyzed especially if taking into account the conditions in modern workplace). In accordance with Feary (1994, 649) ‘sexual harassment does not result from ignorance about fact or law; it is a problem which will be resolved only when the corporate world recognizes that sexual harassment is a moral problem and provides moral education for employees’. In other words, the phenomena of sexual harassment in the workplace could be limited only if appropriate measures are taken by the firms’ administration (e.g. with the introduction and the application of strict internal rules regarding the behaviour of employees – at all levels – in the workplace and the consequences of sexual harassment for the employee who is proved as having proceed to such an action against another employee within the same organization. In law, sexual harassment is closely related with the constructive wrongful discharge. The latter has been characterized as ‘an employee’s reasonable decision to resign because of unendurable working conditions is assimilated to a formal discharge for remedial purposes; the inquiry is objective: Did working conditions become so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign?’ (Chapter IIA, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS (03-95) 542 U.S. 129 (2004), Supreme Court of the United States). The above description for the constructive wrongful discharge has been used by the Court in order to justify its decision to proceed to specific explanation of the behaviour of both parties within the specific workplace. From another point of view it is also stated that ‘a constructive discharge occurs when an employee is legally justified in claiming that he or she was compelled to resign because the employer has made working conditions intolerable; for example, if an employee resigns because the employer was unresponsive to a harassment complaint, the employee might allege constructive discharge as part of a subsequent harassment claim against the employer’ (Dempsey et al., 2006, online article). In accordance with the above descriptions, a constructive wrongful discharge can appear in the workplace when an employee has been forced to quit while he/ she had no such intention; however, under the circumstances (sexual harassment by another employee) he/ she had no other solution. The main problem in the above case remains the right of the employee (victim of sexual harassment) to claim the compensation provided by the relevant legal principles and which is payable to the employee in any case of unfair dismissal. If the existence of constructive wrongful discharge is proved during the hearing of the case, then it is possible that additional compensation is awarded to the employee/ victim of sexual harassment for the damage he/ she suffered because of the unexpected termination of his/ her work (taking also into account the violation of the legal principles related with the protection of personality). 3. Sexual Harassment lawsuits – general framework and evaluation As noticed above sexual harassment lawsuits are in their high majority related with a constructive wrongful discharge. The specific issue has been examined by the court in the case WENDY WHITT, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS TEETER, INC., and RANDY SHULTZ, Defendants, 2004, where it is noticed that ‘whether an at-will employee may be constructively discharged in contravention of the public policy of our State remains unsettled; North Carolina courts have yet to adopt the employment tort of constructive discharge; an at-will employee may not be terminated for a reason violating the public policy of our State because “[a] different interpretation would encourage and sanctionlawlessness, which law by its very nature is designed to discourage and prevent’ (Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co., 325 N.C. 172, 175, 381 S.E.2d 445, 447 (1989) in WENDY WHITT, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS TEETER, INC., and RANDY SHULTZ, Defendants, 2004, Chapter II). Although the above comments can lead to the assumption that the right to work is appropriately protected by the law, still there are weaknesses in the relevant justification that need to be highlighted. It is not clearly stated whether an employee’s decision to quit can be justified by the law if the employee was forced to quit – i.e. if this was not his/ her will. The potential consequences of sexual harassment are also not clearly explained in the above decision. The fact that the employee involved had no other solution than to quit should be taken into consideration by the court when developing the justification of the relevant decision. The issue of constructive discharge is clearly presented in the PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS (03-95) 542 U.S. 129 (2004) where it is noticed that ‘A plaintiff alleging constructive discharge in violation of Title VII, the Court of Appeals stated, must establish:“(1) he or she suffered harassment or discrimination so intolerable that a reasonable person in the same position would have felt compelled to resign … ; and (2) the employee’s reaction to the workplace situation–that is, his or her decision to resign–was reasonable given the totality of circumstances … ‘ (PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS (03-95) 542 U.S. 129 (2004), 445). The effects of constructive discharge on the existing employment contract can be also derived by the court’s view that ‘a constructive discharge, when proved, constitutes a tangible employment action’ (PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS (03-95) 542 U.S. 129 (2004), 447). Under these terms, sexual harassment lawsuits usually refer to the issues developed above targeting at the acceptance by the court of the fact that it was the employer’s deliberate action to lead the specific employee to quit through developing against him/ her (mostly through another employees) a behaviour including all characteristics of sexual harassment. 4. Conclusion In accordance with the above, one of the most challenging tasks for employees that suffered sexual harassment and they were forced to quit is to prove that there was a deliberate action by the employer’s side. More specifically, it must be proved that even if appropriately and clearly reported to the employer the specific action was not treated in accordance with the relevant legal principles. The above issues are highlighted by the court in the case of Graham v. Hardees Food Systems where it is noticed that ‘a plaintiff alleging constructive discharge must demonstrate that the employer deliberately made working conditions intolerable and thereby forced [the plaintiff] to quit; deliberateness exists only if the actions complained of were intended by the employer as an effort to force the employee to quit’ (Graham, 121 N.C. App. at 385, 465 S.E.2d at 560 in PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS (03-95) 542 U.S. 129 (2004)). If no such intention is proved to exist by the employer’s side then it would be very difficult for the employee - who suffered the sexual harassment and was forced to quit - to claim his/ her lawful compensation or other potential benefits lost because of the specific condition developed in the workplace. References Feary, V. (1994) Sexual harassment: Why the corporate world still doesnt “Get It”. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(8): 649-662 Dempsey, G., Petsche, J. (2006) Library Law: Constructive Discharge, online, available at http://www.nsls.info/articles/detail.aspx?articleID=80 Case Law WENDY WHITT, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS TEETER, INC., and RANDY SHULTZ, Defendants, 2004, Court of Appeals http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2004/030335-1.htm Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co., 325 N.C. 172, 175, 381 S.E.2d 445, 447 (1989), Supreme Court Graham v. Hardees Food Systems, 121 N.C. App. 382, 385-86, 465 S.E.2d 558, 560-61 (1995), Court of Appeals PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS (03-95) 542 U.S. 129 (2004) 325 F.3d 432, available at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-95.ZO.html Read More