Question;Simulation: Sexual harassment lawsuit;This simulation involves a hearing at the trial court level on a motion;for summary judgment in a case involving the employer?s liability for;alleged sexual harassment.;Motion;Before a case goes to trial, the parties use various motions to refine;and define the issues. One such motion is the Motion for Summary;Judgment. In this case, the employer?s Motion for Summary judgment;claims that the employee has failed to state sufficient facts for a;jury to be able to decide that a) the conduct complained of constitutes;sexual harassment and b) the employee who allegedly is guilty of;harassment is a ?supervisor?, and c) that the company maintained a;?hostile workplace.?;Briefs;Motions for Summary Judgment are submitted in writing and are supported;by written arguments, called Briefs. Judges will look at the motions;the briefs, and any other sworn statements that parties have made, such;as oral depositions or sworn answers to discovery (see page 171 in your;text) and will also hear oral argument from the parties? attorneys on;the issues raised in the motion.;The Facts;The moving party, in this case Big Car Company, is attempting to;convince the judge that its employee, Clarence, did not sexually harass;Maybelle Darcy, and that Clarence is not a supervisor. To win its point;Big Car must convince the judge the facts stated by Ms Darcy are not;sufficient at law to constitute sexual harassment, are not sufficient at;law to show that there was a ?hostile work environment? and are not;sufficient at law to show that Clarence is a supervisor.;Ms Darcy, in order to get her case to a jury, must convince the judge of the opposite.;Supervisors and middle managers are routinely named as defendants in;sexual harassment cases. The awards can be quite large. The cases;themselves can take many years to resolve. The case upon which this;simulation is based was in litigation for three full years.;Before Watching;Before you watch the simulation, review the material that follows. Watch the simulation, then complete the assignment below.;In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 and Harris v.;Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17, the Supreme Court set out tests for;?hostile workplace.? The full opinions can be found in Doc Sharing We directed courts to determine whether an;environment is sufficiently hostile or abusive by ?looking at all the;circumstances,? including the ?frequency of the discriminatory conduct;its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a;mere offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an;employee?s work performance.?. Most recently, we explained that Title;VII does not prohibit ?genuine but innocuous differences in the ways men;and women routinely interact with members of the same sex and of the;opposite sex."..."simple teasing,? offhand comments, and isolated;incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory;changes in the ?terms and conditions of employment.?(It is not) ?the ordinary tribulations of the;workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related;jokes, and occasional teasing.? Faragher"...in assessing a hostile environment claim;the totality of the circumstances must be examined, including "the;frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is;physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance;and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work;performance." Harris v. ForkliftConduct must be objectively offensive to a;?reasonable person? and seen as subjectively offensive by the person;claiming sexual harassment.EEOC Enforcement Guidance Bulletin on Vicarious Employer Liability;for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (the full text can be found in;Doc Sharing) states the Supreme Court has made clear that employers are;subject to vicarious liability for unlawful harassment by supervisors.;The bulletin gives the following information on who is a ?supervisor?.;(The entire bulletin can be found in Doc Sharing) An individual qualifies as an employee?s ?supervisor? if:the individual has authority to undertake or recommend tangible employment decisions affecting the employee, orthe individual has authority to direct the employee?s daily work activities.;Authority to Undertake or Recommend Tangible Employment Actions;?Tangible employment decisions? are decisions that significantly change;another employee?s employment status. Such actions include, but are not;limited to, hiring, firing, promoting, demoting, and reassigning the;employee. An individual whose job responsibilities include the authority;to recommend tangible job decisions affecting an employee qualifies as;his or her supervisor even if the individual does not have the final;say. As long as the individual?s recommendation is given substantial;weight by the final decision maker(s), that individual meets the;definition of supervisor.;Authority to Direct Employee?s Daily Work Activities;An individual who is authorized to direct another employee?s day-to-day;work activities qualifies as his or her supervisor even if that;individual does not have the authority to undertake or recommend;tangible job decisions.;On the other hand, someone who merely relays other officials?;instructions regarding work assignments and reports back to those;officials does not have true supervisory authority. Furthermore, someone;who directs only a limited number of tasks or assignments would not;qualify as a ?supervisor.?;Assignment;After listening to the simulation and considering the points;discussed in the introduction, write a 300-500 word paper in which you;1. State whether you agree with the Judge?s decision, give reasoning for your answer;2. State how, if you were a juror on this case, you would decide, i.e., would you find that;Clarence was a supervisor Clarence?s conduct constituted sexual harassment and there was a hostile workplace environment.;Give reasons for your decision.
Paper#59057 | Written in 18-Jul-2015Price : $21