Midterm Employment Legal Analysis - Case Study Example

In this case regarding Jami, I believe that the first interview was biased right from the start. The reason why I think this is so is because many workers judged her based on her looks, sniggering at her because of her ethnicity, and asking her about her personal life. All of these things were unnecessary and should not have been tolerated. When Jami was interviewed for the position, it seemed like all of the employees understood that sexual harassment and discrimination were just part of everyday working life. The vice-president of Advancement, Mr. Clark, was the one who was responsible for many of the unethical actions that took place in that workplace. For the “Faragher vs. City of Boca Raton” case, the company cannot reduce its liability because the company has not followed requirements that were laid out in the court case. The court’s requirements included all of the following: 1) Implement a sexual harassment program 2) Train all of the employees in the procedures 3) Once the program has been introduced into the workplace, every employee must make use of it; if not, the employer cannot be held responsible Mr. Clark and many other employees did not follow these prescribed steps at all. Jami faced harassment and discrimination based on her skin color. In addition to this deplorable situation, Jami was also asked private questions that should never be divulged in the workplace. This is tough for anyone to go through—especially someone who is new to a workplace and is trying to establish their reputation. Managers who discriminate against people in this way are not righteous or ethical people and should not have power at such a level. For sexual or gender-based discrimination, there are several categories that comprise this type of injustice: sexual harassment, quid pro quid, discriminatory harassment, and hostile environment. One case that shows how sexual harassment occurs in the workplace is the EEOC vs. Dillard’s, Inc. case. The issue is whether or not one severe incident of improper sexual conduct is sufficient to meet the requirements of a hostile work environment.” In addition, the US District Court came to the conclusion that a hostile environment was present in both situations. The severity of the accusations was considered to be enough to fulfill the criteria of a hostile work environment. This can also be used in Jami’s case because she was sexually harassed by Mr. Clark on a number of different occasions. In my opinion, the company should be held responsible for two specific reasons. The first reason is quid pro quid, while the second is hostile environment. A hostile work environment is defined as “intimidating and offensive sexual conduct perpetrated by a superior or co-worker against an employee.” In this case, Mr. Clark threatened Jami with exposing her mother’s sickness. After she gave into Mr. Clark, Jami realized that she had committed wrong. As a result, she was affected negatively in her workplace for her actions. Jami was demoted and, as a result, had her wages cut by $40,000 per year. Jami was also forced to forego all the benefits she was entitled to. Mr. Clark was responsible for putting her into this position and then did nothing to help her in her strife. When Mr. Clark attempted to kiss Jami, this was a classic example of a hostile environment. Some of the comments from Jami’s coworkers could also be used as an example of this. In terms of quid pro quid, Mr. Clark was able to convince Jami that she would only receive a promotion if she did exactly as Mr. Clark told her. This could be construed as Mr. Clark trying to keep her quiet by providing her with a promotion so his actions would not be punished. All of this shows how unethical the whole company is for allowing such conduct to go on in the workplace without addressing it. The Family Leave Act is made up of these categories: Retaliatory Law, Promissory Estoppel, Supreme Courts, and Elements. So that justice is reached, a court will treat a statement as a promise. In a trial, the judge will make sure that whoever makes the statement cannot deny it further on in the case. Promissory Estoppel is “when a person makes a false statement to another and then the listener relies on what was told to him or her in good faith but to his or her disadvantage.” Therefore, if someone makes a false statement and then proceeds to deny it, it can be considered to be an enforceable promise known as either "promissory estoppel” or an “equitable estoppel.” Anyone can see that Mr. Clark was taking advantage of Jami for his own sexual purposes. However, since she was not willing to cooperate, he made a false statement in order to bring down Jami’s credibility. Due to the circumstances surrounding this act, “An employer can request personal vacation time so it can be utilized or used first upon returning from leave, similar employment positions are often not extended and the wages are reduced.” Jami could not even ask to leave her job because Mr. Clark was completely against that due to his sexual tendencies towards her. This category is about torts and includes the definitions of torts, the different types of torts, and the implications that torts may have on this case. Torts are considered to be civil wrongs rather than criminal wrongs. There can be an exception in the case of battery, which may be both a civil and criminal wrong. If so, the person in the wrong will face civil and criminal penalties. The accepted definition of a tort is as follows: “An act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages.” If the person who suffers from harassment chooses to sue the offending party, which occurred in this case, he or she would need to file under tort law in a state court. If, however, the sexual harassment was written or pictures were involved, then it would be classed as libel. ____________________________________________________________________ If generic comments were made that degraded the gender, an individual could claim the tort of infliction of emotional distress” which applies to this situation, because she really had an emotional and horrible situation by dealing with Mr. Clark, plus all the damage cause to her in assaulting, denigrating her rights and not allowing her to be treated as a professional. Jami can do lot things in order to make a claim against the harasser or in this case the company. What Jami should do in this case is make a claim against the harasser. She originally filed her claim with the EEOC and was given a right to sue in a federal court. Usually people would sue first on the state level. The first type of tort is a retaliatory tort. This would be used to fix the poor situation that exists with the organization. The second type of tort is constructive. The third type of tort deals with privacy. Punitive Damages could be giving which include the Federal and State. The Damages, this category includes some remedies or any judgments we may have to come up with an appropriate solution for this case, and be fair for both parties. In my personal opinion of be being a judge for this case. I would definitely compensate her for all the total damages that company caused her and all the hard situations that she was dealing with this people. Also If I were a judge, I would compensate her for the mental and professional issues damages that the company has placed on her. The damages are capped at that amount by the Civil Rights act. “The amendment to the Civil Rights Act made compensatory and punitive damages available to Title VII plaintiffs, including those victimized by sexual harassment the damages are capped at $300,000”. She should be compensated for the reduction in her salary of $40,000 per year, this was really serious and unacceptable. I also think that the damages need to include all the attorney fees and all of the wages and expenses in Jami’s efforts to win her case against the company. One of the keys will also be to reward her for the money that was spent for her treatment for her physical and mental breakdown. The company was responsible for this so they will be a punitive damage. The punitive damage should be high because of the lack of controls that existed within the organization. Mr. Clark had also implied how the job was being used to pay for the medical expenses of Jami’s mother. The medical expenses incurred during the time that these events occurred should be paid by the company as well. It seemed as though this situation had already occurred with frequency. Because Mr. Clark had tried to bribe Jami with a salary raise to $120,000, the company should be punished by that amount. In conclusion, I think all the society should analyze this case and think about all the issues about race, sexual harassment, discrimination, gender discrimination, religion and all those things. The reason why is because we have been facing a lot of issue regarding the mentioned above. It is important to understand that everybody has their rights and freedom and we all should respect their orientation and point of view. We do not have to agree with any comments and answers that everybody says, but we need to respect even though we think is not right or wrong. Jami was really facing a bad situation, and I cannot understand how this people are acting in this unethical way. They should be penalized for what they have done to Jami and make them to go through a treatment process to learn in how to evaluate or interview any kind of person; no matter the circumstances or their race or anything. We all deserve to be treat fairly as everybody else and I think Jami in this case was not at all. Read More