EMPLOYMENT LAW - Case Study Example

[Manager] EMPLOYMENT LAW 24 November EMPLOYMENT LAW Jami is clearly a victim of sexual harassment. According to lawyer Mary L. Boland, “sexual harassment is a kind of sex discrimination involving unwelcome sexual conduct or pressure in school or the workplace. Equal treatment in school and in the workplace is a civil right under federal and state laws”. In this given problem, the sexual advances made by Jami’s boss constitute sexual conduct in the work environment. The traumatic ordeal she had to go through forced her to seek medical and psychiatric treatment to overcome the sexual abuses she had experienced in the hands of her employer. In the case of Smith V. First Union National Bank (202, F. 3d 234,242, 4th Cir. 2000), sexual harassment was defined as a situation when “a work environment consumed by remarks that intimidate, ridicule, and maliciously demean the status of women can create an environment that contains unwanted sexual advances.” Jami, who is a victim of sexual harassment should file a complaint against Mr. Clark, her boss before the U.S. Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or file the case before the federal or state court. During the hallway review, Mr. Hallway even insisted that she can go back to her work only if she dropped the charges against him. Clearly, this harassment by the boss continued to persist because he knows that Jami is in dire financial distress because she was supporting her ailing mother. The former boss still places her in a hostile situation even if they no longer had a working relationship. The acts committed against Jami undoubtedly falls within the context of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991), which “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin with respect to compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment”. In a number of occasions in the work place of Jami manifested that sexual harassment was present. First, the colleagues who commented on her physical attributes, like her body; and Second, the offensive gesticulation of Mr. Clark, the Vice-President of the company who stared at her body parts in a provocative manner, are indicative signs of sexual harassment. It is evident that a sexually hostile atmosphere was present in the work place. The illicit invitations made by Mr. Clark on Jami for lunch and out-of-town getaways on one weekend at his cabin, constitute sexually obnoxious behavior. These instances are severe enough to form the basis for a legal claim of sexual harassment. Although Jami accepted the invitations made by her boss on two occasions, her refusal to give in to his sexual demands such as kissing to maintain her present position in the company is an indication that she does not consent to the immoral acts. The case of Smith V. First Union National Bank (202, F. 3d 234,242, 4th Cir. 2000) stated that: “It was sexual harassment for a male supervisor to tell a female employee that women are too emotional to be in the workplace, that they need sex in order to perform well, and that violence may be the only way to keep a woman in line”. In the similar case of Schmidt V. Smith (684 A.2d 66, 1996), the Supreme Court ruled that: “This falls within the purview of sexual harassment when a young New Jersey woman left her job after six weeks, because the President of her company, among other things, constantly asked her to have sex with him, and on several occasions, grabbed her and tried to kiss her.” The situation of Jami is undoubtedly indicative of a sexually aggressive and antagonistic work atmosphere. However, due her current financial situation, she was forced her to reconsider giving in to the sexual favors of her boss in to retain her job. However, in the end, she refused to give in to the sexual innuendos of the boss in exchange for her position in the company. Thus, her rejection resulted to her demotion and reduction of her pay per year, and earned her a poor evaluation performance report, which pressured her to resign from work. These circumstances constituted valid grounds to substantiate her claim for sexual harassment. The two requisites that shall give rise to a sexually hostile environment based on gender are the following 1.) The acts or acts must be subjectively abusive to the victim affected, and; 2.) The act or acts committed must be objectively severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would find abusive. Lawyer, Mary Boland reported that: “The Courts have identified two general types of sexual harassment that extends to other more specific forms: 1.) Quid Pro Quo, which means something for something; and 2.) Hostile Environment In both cases, the law requires that the conduct was unwelcome. This means that the person did not invite it.” In the case of Jami, both of the instances are present and qualify as sexual harassment. Under the law, Jami can file a tort claim based on sexual harassment. “The tort law has been recognized as a proper remedy for a sexually harassed victim. These causes of action have been brought under the theories of assault and battery, intention infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, tortios interference with contractual relations, and other tort theories” (Conte 646). The basis for Jami’s claim is intentional infliction of emotional distress in relation to the sexual harassment case. It can even be proven based on facts that might not even support finding of sex discrimination under Title VII. Sexual harassment victims like Jami experience stress-related ailments including high-blood pressure, chest pains, insomnia or sleepless nights, headaches, nausea, dizziness and nervous convulsions. The emotional turmoil brought about by the sexual harassment committed against her caused her to suffer severe emotional distress, pushed her to obtain medical/psychiatric treatment to release her from the traumatic experience. In Retherford v. AT & T Communications (844 P.2d 949, 1992), the Supreme Court held that “the act of the employer and co-workers who intimidated her with threatening looks and remarks, and manipulated circumstances at her work in ways that made her job markedly more stressful, all in retaliation for her good-faith complaint of sexual harassment”. The judge should rule in favor of Jami. The law allows her to file a sexual harassment case against the employer. Without a doubt, there is glaring violation of Title VII, (as amended in 1991) on the basis of the hostile work environment and the sexual favor in exchange of her job position are indication that sexual harassment was committed. Under the 1991 amendment, a sexual harassment victim, such as Jami can recover back pay, future monetary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-monetary types of loss. She shall also be awarded with punitive damages once proven that the employer acted with evident bad faith, malice or with reckless or callous indifference to her situation. The amendment of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 set a limit on the amounts of compensatory and punitive damages that can be awarded to a sexual harassed victim. The basis of the limitation shall be anchored on the number of people employed in a company: 1. The employers with 15-100 employees shall grant $50,000 to the victim; 2. For employers with 101-200 employees, the amount is fixed at $100,000; 3. For employers with 201-500 employees, the amount is fixed at $200,000; and 4. For employers with more than 500 employees, the amount is fixed at $300,000. Furthermore, the federal law remedies available for sex/gender discrimination shall be the following causes: battery, assault, outrage, wrongful termination, negligent retention and other potential claims. Judgment should be made in favour of the victim by way of monetary claims for damages and reinstatement to her former position in the office. The judge should also order the employer to endeavor to prevent any form of sexual harassment to be committed in the office by issuing company policies, as a way to correct the unlawful nature of the work environment. Works Cited: Boland, Mary L. Sexual Harassment: Your Guide to Legal Action. What You Should Know and What You Can Do. Illinois, USA :Sphinx Publishing. 2002. Print. Conte, Alba. Sexual harassment in the workplace: Law and Practice, Vol. 1. New York, NY: Panel Publishers. 2000. Print. Retherford v. AT & T Communications (844 P.2d 949, 1992) Schmidt V. Smith (684 A.2d 66, 1996), Smith V. First Union National Bank (202, F. 3d 234,242, 4th Cir. 2000) Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991 Read More