Question: 1 According to the court under Vance Lopez was not

1. According to the court, under Vance, Lopez was not Stabenchek’s supervisor for purposes of Title VII sexual harassment liability. Why?
a. What was the basis for the plaintiffs’ assertion that Lopez was Stabenchek’s supervisor? Explain.
b. Do you think Lopez and others who are, for example, placed in charge of a store during shifts, should be considered a supervisor for purposes of Title VII sexual harassment liability? Explain.
2. Truck driver Lesley Parkins claimed she was a victim of hostile environment sexual harassment while employed by Civil Constructors beginning in 1994. Parkins alleged that coworkers subjected her to foul language, sexual stories, and touching. Parkins complained to her dispatcher, Tim Spellman, and to one of her purported harassers, Robert Strong. She saw the job superintendent and the company EEO officer almost daily, but she did not complain to either. In 1996 Parkins filed a grievance with her union—Teamsters Local 325. The union contacted the company EEO officer, who immediately launched an investigation that led to punishment for the employees. Parkins conceded that she was not harassed following the company punishment. Parkins filed suit charging Civil Constructors with sexual harassment. Parkins claimed that two of her harassers, Strong and Charles Boeke, were foremen who supervised her work. Assuming Parkins can prove that she was, in fact, sexually harassed, what must she prove in order to hold Civil Constructors liable?
3. Eileen Craig worked for the Mahoney Group as the branch manager in Tucson and reported to Leon Byrd, the interim president. Over the course of several months, Byrd made repeated inappropriate comments to Craig about her legs and how she should wear shorter skirts. Although Craig thought the comments were obnoxious, she was not particularly offended. At Byrd’s invitation, Craig met him for drinks after work at a restaurant, as they had done previously to discuss work- related matters. After Byrd made a sexual proposition, Craig laughed and shook her head but did not leave the restaurant. Byrd later followed Craig into the restaurant’s restroom, grabbed her and kissed her. Craig did not report this incident. Byrd made further advances to Craig which she rejected. At some point Byrd told Craig that he didn’t think he could work with her anymore. Craig finally reported Byrd’s conduct under the company’s sexual harassment policy. The company took immediate action: Byrd was instructed to stay away from Craig and to stop making sex-ual comments to her, and Craig began reporting to another company executive. The investigator retained by the employer recommended, among other things, that Byrd receive a reprimand and training. At the end of the investigation, Craig began reporting again to Byrd. Eventually, Craig resigned and filed complaint asserting a Title VII sexual harassment claim.
a. Is Mahoney liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment? What questions would you have if you were on the jury? Explain.
b. Is Mahoney liable for hostile work environment sexual harassment? What other facts might you need to know before deciding? Explain.
4. A female employed as an Installation and Repairs Technician claimed a hostile work environment was created in the garage in which she worked by the routine use of profanity, crude humor, vulgar graffiti depicting sexual acts, and especially by sexually demeaning conversations conveying a profound disrespect for women. While the comments and graffiti demeaned some male employees, the conduct was directed at all the women working in the garage.
a. In deciding whether the conduct constituted hostile environment sexual harassment, should the court evaluate the facts from the point of view of a “reasonable person” or a “reasonable woman”? Explain.
b. Why does it matter?

View Solution:

Sale on SolutionInn
  • CreatedOctober 02, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question