What should other managers learn about the case and resolution below when it comes to Hospitality Management?

Read the below court case below and write a "message to management". Write a detailed suggestion to other managers on what they could learn from this case and prevention methods, if any.

To understand how important it is to do a thorough investigation and take employee complaints seriously, consider the case of Romero v. Howard Johnson Plaza Hotel, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15264 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).

Factual Summary

Rose Romero (Romero) was a guestroom attendant for Howard Johnson Plaza Hotel (Howard Johnson). Romero was employed with Howard Johnson from 1987 until 1993. During her employment she was sexually harassed by a number of her coworkers on a number of occasions. In one incident, a male coworker responded to a request made by Romero with a string of vulgar comments. Another incident involved Romero and an intoxicated male coworker, who approached Romero stating he knew how to please a woman and then exposed himself. Romero reported some of the incidents to supervisors, the general manager of the hotel, security, her union, and ultimately the police.

After Romero made a complaint to the police, the management of Howard Johnson sent the male co-worker involved a letter stating the companys policy on sexual harassment. The letter also stated the allegations made by Romero could neither be confirmed nor denied due to the absence of a third-party witness. Romero also requested a union meeting be held so she could discuss her harassment claims. The meeting was conducted publicly, with several of her alleged harassers present. Despite the meeting and a reminder of Howard Johnsons harassment policy for the parties involved, the harassment continued.

After several fabricated reprimands, and at least two suspensions based on false accusations, Romero left Howard Johnson in 1993. She sued Howard Johnson, two of her former coworkers, and three managers for sexual harassment.

Question for the Court

The court was faced with at least two questions in this case. The first was whether Romero waited too long after the last incident of sexual harassment to bring her lawsuit against the defendants. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a person claiming workplace harassment or a hostile work environment must file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 300 days of the unlawful action. Romero filed her claim with the EEOC on June 13, 1993. Howard Johnson argued Romero could not file complaints about incidents prior to August 22, 1992, and most of the incidents occurred before then. Romero argued that all of the incidents were part of an ongoing act of discrimination and could be considered a continuing violation. Romero also argued she was subjected to a hostile work environment, which involves a continuing pattern of discrimination or sexual harassment rather than one isolated event.

The second question for the court concerned the liability of Howard Johnson. Romero argued Howard Johnson created the hostile work environment because it either failed to provide a reasonable avenue for complaints or knew about the harassment and did nothing to stop it. If Howard Johnson created or contributed to a hostile work environment, it was liable for the misconduct also.

Decision

The court decided Romero was subjected to a hostile work environment and that the sexual harassment was a continuing violation. Therefore, she could sue based on all of the past incidents. The court also found evidence Howard Johnson either knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to stop it.

Message to Management