Sexual Harassment Law - Case Study Example

Employment Law Sexual Harassment laws are applicable in this case, considering that Jami Jensen was exposed to unfair treatment in the work place, due to resistance of sexual advances that were made to her by John Clark, the Vice president of the company. Sexual harassment requires that various thresholds are met, to have sufficient prove that it was actually sexual harassment, and that the employer is liable for the offense. The other law that is applicable in this case is the contract law, which provides for the basis of a contact between the employee and the employer, and further covers the basis for hiring and dismissal of the employee, by the employer. Starting with the application of the contract law, it is apparent that the employment of Jami Jensen was done in contravention of the laid down employment contract laws, where the employer is supposed to grant the employee a written contract of engagement, the moment the employee is hired by the employer. In Jami Jensen’s case, she was hired but a written contract was not offered by the employer. This situation makes her case complex, considering that it becomes difficult to establish the basis of her engagement with the employer, and the terms and conditions of the engagement, especially regarding the issues of salary increment, promotion and demotion. As a result of lack of a written contract of engagement, the organization just demotes Jami Jensen arbitrarily and reduces her salary from $80,000 to $40,000, while she is also relinquished of her position, and demoted to that of a supervisor. Another issue that arises in the Jami Jensen’s case, which falls under the contract law, is the issue of leave. Considering that she was not granted a written contract of engagement with the employer, Jami Jensen is not aware of the terms and conditions that are applicable in requesting for a leave, which should be clearly and precisely stipulated in the written contract of engagement. Thus, when she seeks for leave, she is told she has to offer a two week request in advance, and she does not have a basis of disputing the same, since she does not have a written contract to that effect. Sexual harassment law is applicable in this case, since Jami Jensen has been discriminated against, in matters pertaining to employee benefits such as leave, due to the fact that she has refused to yield to the sexual advances made to her by Mr. Clark, who is the vice president of the company. However, for the law of sexual harassment to apply, there are certain thresholds that must be met, which includes: The sexual advances either made verbally or physically, qualify to be regarded as sexual harassment, whenever such advances and sexual requests are unwelcome to the victim. Additionally, the guidelines under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of the US require that such advances must be made on terms in relation to employment. Another requirement is that the rejection of such sexual advances is then applied as basis of decision-making affecting the individual who turned down the sexual requests. Further, the guidelines also provides that the decisions made as a result of turning down the sexual requests must create an unfavorable working environment for the victim, where the working environment then becomes offensive, intimidating or even hostile for the victim to bear. Finally, the EEOC guidelines provides that an individual should not do anything to create a hostile environment, while at the same time, the harassment must have been a gender issue, for example a woman being sexually harassed because she is of the female gender, and she was alone with a male employee. There are various tort claims that Jami Jensen can make. First, she can pursue a tort claim of sexual harassment, considering that the vice president of the company made sexual advances to her, which were unwelcome, and went ahead to discriminate her on the basis of turning down his sexual advances. The other tort claim that Jami Jensen can pursue is that of constructive discharge, which refers to the decision by an employee to quit employment due to a hostile, discriminating or intimidating environment, created by reporting harassment to the management of the organization, which fails to take the necessary measures to correct the wrong done against the employee, as was the case with Jami Jensen. Jami Jensen can also pursue a tort claim for family leave discrimination, where she was denied a leave despite her mother requiring surgery, and she was required to write a written notice of leave, issued two weeks in advance, while normally such requirements are not provided for under the employment laws. Racial discrimination is yet another tort claim that Jami Jensen could pursue, owing to the interview test questions that were apparently racially biased. The claims that Jami Jensen can have under federal and state laws include the claim for Negligence Tort Damages, considering that the decisions made to demote her and reduce her salary by half were not based on merit, but on the basis of turning down unwelcome sexual favors. Another claim for damages that she might have is the claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress damages, considering that she was exposed to intolerable conditions, which forced her to even seek for medical and psychiatric help. The ruling that would be given in this case is that Jami Jensen should be paid damages for the violation of her employment rights. The employer should pay Jami Jensen Negligence Tort Damages, for making decisions to demote her and to reduce her salary on the basis of discriminating her for failing to yield to the sexual favors of one of the management team. This ruling will be based on the fact that the sexual harassment against Jami Jensen was on a Quid Pro Quo basis, since it emanated from one of the executive members of the organization, thus making the organization vicariously liable for failing to correct the sexual harassment situation, despite the management been given a report of the offense. The ruling would also require the organization to pay Jami Jensen Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress damages, for exposing her to intolerable conditions that affected her emotionally and psychologically, forcing her to seek medical and psychiatric help. Read More