Sexual Harassment and Psychological Stress at Work - Case Study Example

Sexual Harassment and Psychological Stress at Work In the case of Jami Jenson and large international firm that is her employer, there are many aspects to the case that make it difficult for a judge to easily rule on the outcome. First, Jami never signed a written contract to work for the company under specific conditions. However, as she worked for six months receiving a salary of $80,000 and benefits, it is obvious that both she and the company have agreed to her employment under these conditions. When offered the job, Jami was advised she would have a ninety-day probationary period and then after she would only be eligible for dismissible “for cause.” Unfortunately, she does not have a contract with this written in it. On the other hand, most states allow for a company to dismiss a new employ within a probationary period without having to provide a cause. Had Ms. Jenson not been harassed in any way, the case would probably end here. She was still within the ninety-day probationary period and could therefore legally be dismissed. Additionally, the company did not have to let Ms. Jenson remain an employee after she took leave to be with family – no matter what the reason. The kept a job available for her, even if it was not under the same conditions. The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) only requires that an employer reserve a position for someone on leave for personal or family illness if the individual has been an employee for a full year. Ms. Jenson does not qualify for FMLA as she has been an employee for less than a year. The difficulty in this case comes when considering harassment by the supervisors, mainly John Clark. While Ms. Jenson was advised by a coworker not to attend a meeting with a supervisor alone, she did so. She also willingly agreed to join him at his cabin. While there she felt pressured to begin a physical relationship with the supervisor in order to get a promotion. As there was no one else at the meeting or at the cabin, it would be very difficult for Jami Jenson to prove that any harassment took place. The company has no policy against inter-office dating. There are no specific laws pertaining to dating but both California and the Federal government have laws against sexual harassment. Regrettably, Jami Jenson has no witnesses to the harassment at the meeting or at the cabin. Still, Ms. Jenson could testify that a female supervisor noticed Mr. Clark’s ogling looks and even had to intervene. This testimony would establish an obvious physical interest in Ms. Jenson on the part of Mr. Clark. It may even indicate an interest by other male supervisors if the female supervisor noticed such attention. In this case Ms. Jenson has been a victim of sexual harassment and is entitled to compensation for her job. As she had to seek medical and psychiatric help after being demoted for refusing to have an intimate relationship with her supervisor, she is also entitled to compensation for her pain and suffering as well as her medical bills. While it was inappropriate for Mr. Clark to offer her a higher paying job if she does not sue the company, it would seem as though Mr. Clark is admitting his guilt right there, and I would rule on Ms. Jenson’s side for this alone. As a judge in this case I would look at Ms. Jenson’s history of work during her probationary period at the company. She had an outstanding first six months and while the company legally had another thirty days to dismiss her without cause, her testimony and the testimony of the female supervisor would convince me that she was sexually harassed and therefore was dismissed illegally. Had her supervisor not demanded a physical relationship, the company would have had the right to fire her if they so choose. As Mr. Clark did indeed require a physical relationship in exchange for her employment and advancement, state and federal laws were broken and verdict would go to the plaintiff. The defendant would be required to pay compensation for the loss of job, pain, suffering, and resultant medical bills, and all court costs including court and lawyer fees for the plaintiff. Ms. Jenson was asked inappropriate questions during her interview as well, something that could lead towards trouble during the company. There are specific laws regarding what questions employers are allowed to ask. Questions regarding race are not allowed. Any questions that are regarding race and what sex Ms. Jenson was are allowed to be denied to be answered by the client. For example, the question asked by the female employees should not be allowed in any way, shape or form. All companies are required by law to be “racially diverse”. The question, “If you are hired, what are you going to do if you are critiqued by upper management, claim racial harassment?” should never have been asked. This could entitle Ms. Jenson to some reward of her claim right there. If they had simply asked, “What are you going to do when critiqued by upper management?”, then the company would have been totally within the line of the law; however, Ms. Jenson’s question was out of line and should not have been asked. Again, all companies are not allowed to discrimate against anyone of any color. The employer, Mr. Clark, should have never looked at Ms. Jenson inappropriately. This was totally out of line for Mr. Clark and there should have been more recognition than just a nudge. While his offer to take Ms. Jenson out to the cabin may have been valid, there should never been any exchange of any sexual activities – not even a kiss. Mr. Clark never should have said the following statement: “Why did you think I would offer you such a position at your age? Don’t you realize that unless you are my girl, you will never amount to anything in this company?” This statement should have never been made, especially sense in this scenario, the words “my girl” most likely have sexual implications attached. It is made clear that Mr. Clark has his employees under his control – the female ones anyway. Ms. Jenson should not be required to perform sexual behaviors in any way, shape or form to do sexual favors for Mr. Clark. There are many different laws that apply here. I would state that the first would easily be sexual harassment. It’s clear that from the very first interview, Mr. Clark harassed Ms. Jenson. She will be easily able to sue because of the situation that Mr. Clark forced her in when he invited to a cabin. It was okay for him to invite her for drinks, however he never, never should have invited her to the cabin and asked her for sexual favors. He should also not have called her “my girl,” a term which clearly has sexual implements in statements. As a judge I would clearly say that Ms. Jenson is entitled to a sexual harassment claim and I would encourage her to apply for sexual discrimination. She will easily be able to win this claim, and, furthermore as a judge I would award her this claim. I believe that the other claims that Ms. Jenson should make are claims of racial harassment. This claim was very clear from the first interview when the female employees asked her the question about the racial statement. The interview question, “If you are hired, what are you going to do if you are critiqued by upper management, claim racial harassment?” was clearly a racial statement. She could easily be able to claim that the company was racially biased and should not be working there. She may also be entitled to compensation for her emotional grief. By seeking psychiatric assessment and issues it is clear that Ms. Jenson was put under a lot of stress working for this company. Ms. Jenson should not have been put under this much stress in any way, shape or form. Even the human recourses in the department should be blamed, as they did not help her situation. She should have been granted time off to be with her family. I would grant Ms. Jenson three following claims upon brief observation alone: I would grant her the claim of sexual harassment and award her compensation for that. I would grant her the claim of discrimination as it’s clear from the interview questions she was discriminated against. I would also speak with Ms. Jenson personally to find out whether or not there had been other discrimination claims. Finally, I would grant Ms. Jenson a psychological stress award, as it is clear that this put her through a great deal of stress. CONCLUSION: Three claims I would ask Ms. Jenson to file so I could grant: sexual harassment, discrimination, and psychological stress. Read More