QUESTION SET 1

Elena is an assistant script writer at Super Productions, one of the biggest and most successful Hollywood production companies. She and several coworkers applied for an available script writer position, which pays about 50% more than she now makes. When she submitted her application, Elena was told that she was well qualified for the promotion, which was no surprise to anyone in light of her previous glowing reviews and her track record with the company.

Unfortunately, her career has taken a turn for the worse. It all started Tuesday night, when Harvey, the companys CEO, asked her to come to his Malibu beach house to go over a script. When she arrived, Harvey was dressed in bathing trunks and sipping from a glass of Scotch. Although their discussion was script-related and there was no overtly sexual conduct on Harveys part, Elena was extremely uncomfortable and left as soon as she could. The following morning she complained to Maria, the Deputy Director of HR. Being asked to work alone at night with Harvey in his home while he was drinking and not fully clothed was, as far as Elena was concerned, highly offensive and tantamount to sexual harassment(her perception).

Later that week, Elena learned that she did not get the script writer promotion and that Jack, one of her co-workers, had been selected for the position.

Analyze whether Elena could make out a prima facie claim in connection with the promotion decision using the indirect method (see pp. 81-87 and 98-99 of the Walsh textbook.)Your response should identify her legal claim(s) and assess her ability to show each of the elements of a prima facie case related to her claim(s).

If additional information would be helpful to your analysis, explain how and why it would impact your analysis.

QUESTION SET TWO

Weve learned a little more about why Elena didnt get the promotion. As it turns out, although Harvey made the final decision, he based his decision to select Jack entirely on the recommendation of Milt, a Super Productions screen writer who was a member of the interviewing panel. While Harvey remained blissfully unaware of Elenas complaints, Milt had heard about them through the grapevine. A long time employee of Super Productions, Milt had always felt that it was much easier to work with guys, and Elenas gripes just confirmed his thinking. As far as Milt was concerned, not only are men more likely to write great scripts, theyre a lot easier to deal with - a point of view that hed shared with his boss, Harvey, on more than one occasion. After all, Milt had never heard of a guy complaining about sexual harassment. And, on top of that, Milt strongly believed that Elena needed to be taught a lesson. After all, complaints about the boss are not good for the company and Jack, to Milts knowledge, had never complained about Harvey. Although Milt did not share these specific thoughts about Elena with Harvey, they were the basis for Milts recommendation that Jack get the promotion. When Harvey asked Milt about Elenas previously glowing reviews and reputation for high quality work, Milt told him that her record had been overblown and Jack was the better candidate.

Using the IRAC format:

1. Sex Discrimination(?) First, identify the narrow Issue(s) identified in this fact pattern.
2. Subordinate Bias theory, Vazquez v. Empress Ambulance Service Second, identify and describe the Rule or test the courts use to analyze such issues. To receive points for this part of the question, you must reference a case in the course reading in which the rule/test was applied. Be sure to identify the case by its full name and give the page on which it appears in the course reading.
3. Third, discuss how the court Applied the rule to the salient or most important facts in that case(the courts Analysis.)
4. Finally, analyze our fact pattern, i.e., apply the rule to our fact pattern and describe the Conclusion that you anticipate a court would reach based on the law and our facts.
5. If additional information would be helpful to your analysis, explain how and why it would impact the analysis.

DAVID WASLH- 6 EDITION