Teddy Supplies sexual harassment policy that Pollard signed which outlines the terms of the Company towards issues of sexual harassment is very categorical in stating the procedures to follow and conditions when filing a sexual harassment claim. In this section we shall briefly review the circumstances of the case against the sexual harassment laws that governs the workplaces of all the organizations in the United States. The sexual harassment laws are governed by the Civil Rights Act, 1964; based on this Act the employer is given the mandate to put in place prevention measures that would discourage sexual harassment actions in the workplace. Towards this end an employer is expected to ensure the following two issues have been addressed in the work place; one, to take proactive actions that prevent sexual harassment in workplace before it occurs (Larson, 2003). Secondly, to ensure that employees are conversant with the organizational sexual harassment policy that must be enforced by the employer (Larson, 2003).
Based on the case study it would appear that Teddy has failed in both these requirements which would potentially make them more liable; this is because the circumstances of the case indicate an existence of a culture of sexual harassment that has been going on for years at the Company’s workplace. The fact that sexual harassment continued to take place for that long indicates that the sexual harassment policy for Teddy was both ineffective and certainly not preventive. But there are other issues to consider in this case; the Teddy’s sexual harassment policy states that a complaint must be filed within three months failure to which the complaint will have been assumed to have been waived by the complainant. From the circumstances of the case, it is clear that Pollard took more than three months to file the sexual harassment complaint.
But this condition does not appear anywhere in the Civil Rights Acts which would mean that this conditions will be inadmissible in a court of law during the case hearing even if it is is pointed out. But on the other hand, there is one issue to consider in this case scenario which Teddy can use as their defense; this is because Pollard did not fully make use of the available channels to file a sexual harassment claim. This is because the law expects that exhaustive and complete efforts must have been undertaken by the employee filing a sexual harassment complaint which Pollard never did (Larson, 2003). But at the same time it is clear that Teddy never “took reasonable measures to prevent and correct any sexual harassment behavior” (Larson, 2003). Thus, my assessment is that Teddy will lose this case despite the mitigating circumstances.
- The Civil Rights Act recognizes sexual harassment cases to be into forms; one, is hostile work environment and two, quid pro quo (Larson, 2003). Quid Pro Quo is when sexual harassment is directed towards an employee in such a way that continued job benefits are pegged on the employee continued cooperation in providing sexual favors (Larson, 2003). Hostile work environment on the other hand is where sexual harassment incidences occur in workplaces in a way that does not involve exchange of favors; in this case it is more subtle and may occur in many forms but is characteristically seen to occur in repetitive patterns (Larson, 2003). The circumstances of the case indicate that Pollard sexual harassment was of the latter category.
- Hostetler v. Quality Dining, Inc., 218 F.3d 789, 810-11(7th Cir.) (Vlex.com, 2009). This case involved a female employee, Hostetler who is the plaintiff and the defendant Quality Dining Inc. The fact of this case are that at one time a fellow male employee named Indiana physically attacked her where he sexually harassed her, upon complaining to the supervisor she was transferred at another branch of the Company where the sexual harassment continued to take place. Later she filed a case of sexual discriminations against her employer for being made to work under hostile work environment. At ruling the judges determined that the employer had a case to answer based on the fact that “her new location (where she was transferred) was inconvenient and arguably left her worse off; remedial measures that make the victim worse off are necessarily ineffective” (Vlex.com, 2009). The similarity of this case with our case study are striking given that Pollard was transferred to another department, though not because of sexual harassment reasons, but an action which resulted in heightened sexual discriminations on her by her male colleagues. The precedent set by the ruling of this case will thus strengthen the case of Pollard against the Teddy’s.
- Disparate treatment is described under Civil Rights Act as “intentional discriminations” based on several factors among which include gender. In determining whether disparate treatment has occurred a court of law will rely on whether the victim was treated differently from other members of a certain group. This means that based on this definition Pollard was indeed disparately treated since the sexual harassment instigated against her were directed towards her by virtue of her being the only female working on that department.
- Yes the presence of sexual harassment policy is a defense to Teddy because it implies that it has taken preventive efforts as required by law, but unfortunately not to an extent of enforcing it. Two cases are pertinent in this case; Farley v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 74 and Stuart v. GMC, 217 F.3d 621, 633 (Dotcr.com, 2009).
- The 90 days window period for filing a sexual harassment policy should be abolished because it will not be upheld in a court of law in any case; besides it can be interpreted to be inconsistent with the articles of the Civil Rights Act which does not make it conditional to have a window period.
- The policy should make it mandatory that all form of sexual harassment complaints be officially written down so as to avoid cases where victims’ claims that they had made oral complaints to the supervisors as is the case in this case study.
- All sexual harassment complaints to be directed to a special enacted committee directly using a specified procedure, this way the process of reporting sexual harassment cases is streamlined and there is no possibility of defeating or obstructing justice. As at is, the supervisor might opt not to forward the written report when it is handed to him.
If these recommendations have been integrated before, Pollard would not currently be claiming that she has severally filed a verbal sexual harassment complaint to the supervisor and the whole system would have been able to detect sexual harassment incidences well before they had become rampant. In the case of Stuart v. GMC, 217 F.3d 621, the court waived responsibility against the employer because enough evidence was shown that demonstrated that employer enforced the sexual harassment cases and investigated the cases promptly.
The fact that her replacement was a male further confirms to the court that she was more likely sexually discriminated; nevertheless, even if her replacement was a female the gravity of the harassment would not really be lessened.
Ideally, the damages that Pollard would hope the court to award her would be back pay damages because of her income loss during the time that she was fired and compensatory damages for her mental suffering.
References
Dotcr.com. (2009). Preventing Sexual Harassment: A Fact Sheet for Employees. Web.
Larson, A. (2003). Sexual harassment Law. Web.
Vlex.com (2009). Ann M. Hostetler, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Quality Dining, Inc., Defendant-Appellee., 218 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2000). Web.