Employment Law and Discrimination

Watch the “You be the Judge: Sexual Harassment” video (details below… and online Google)
Write a paper of not more than 1,050 words analyzing the sexual harassment issues presented in the video.
• Analyze each of the elements of this cause of action, the applicable defenses, and the bases for the Judge’s ruling.
• Analyze the potential civil liability of both the employee and the employer.
• Analyze the different liability in this case if the sexual harasser were an independent contractor versus an employee.
Cite at least five peer-reviewed sources.
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Issues to consider:
As the argument unfolds consider the following issues:

Was the sexual behavior unwelcome?
Does the Plaintiffs reaction meet the “reasonable person” standard?
Has a “Hostile environment” been created?
Is there any employer liability?
Is there corroborative evidence to support the claim?
Is the claim credible?

Cases to consider/research

Henson v. City of Dundee
Swentek v. US Air Inc
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
Oncale v. Sundower Offshore Services

Video scenario:
Sexual Harassment: Sexy Prank Kills Promotion

You find for the Defendant. (Judge Ruled In Defendants Favor)

1. The Plaintiff did not establish that the sexual behavior was discouraged – He participated and never voiced any discomfort to the Defendant, or to anyone else.

2. The Plaintiff did not establish that quid pro quo harassment existed. No explicit positive or negative outcome was offered based on the acceptance of the sexual behavior.

3. No reasonable person would have reacted the way the Plaintiff reacted to the circumstance.

4. The Plaintiff did not establish that a hostile environment was created by the Defendant’s behavior. There was no evidence presented that proved a disruption of the workplace’s functioning.

5. The employer is not liable because there was no evidence proving that a hostile environment existed or that the management was made aware of the environment and neglected to act.

Sexual Harassment: Sexy Prank Kills Promotion

You find for the Plaintiff. (No Clear Evidence to rule in favor of Plaintiff)

1. The Plaintiff made it clear that the sexual behavior was discouraged and unwelcome.
No evidence

2. This is a case of quid pro quo harassment because there was a clear threat/reward offered in exchange for agreement to or acceptance of sexual behavior.
No clear evidence

3. A reasonable person of the same background and in the same situation would have reacted in the same manner. The Plaintiff’s reaction was reasonable.
No evidence/Not likely
4. The Plaintiff established that a hostile environment was created by the Defendant’s behavior. The alleged sexual behavior prevented the Plaintiff from conducting his work duties and disrupted his peace of mind.
No evidence/Hard to prove

5. The employer is liable because the Plaintiff established that a hostile environment was created by the Defendant’s behavior and the management neglected the obvious disruption to the Plaintiff’s work.
No evidence

Employment Law and Discrimination

Watch the “You be the Judge: Sexual Harassment” video (details below… and online Google)
Write a paper of not more than 1,050 words analyzing the sexual harassment issues presented in the video.
• Analyze each of the elements of this cause of action, the applicable defenses, and the bases for the Judge’s ruling.
• Analyze the potential civil liability of both the employee and the employer.
• Analyze the different liability in this case if the sexual harasser were an independent contractor versus an employee.
Cite at least five peer-reviewed sources.
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Issues to consider:
As the argument unfolds consider the following issues:

Was the sexual behavior unwelcome?
Does the Plaintiffs reaction meet the “reasonable person” standard?
Has a “Hostile environment” been created?
Is there any employer liability?
Is there corroborative evidence to support the claim?
Is the claim credible?

Cases to consider/research

Henson v. City of Dundee
Swentek v. US Air Inc
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
Oncale v. Sundower Offshore Services

Video scenario:
Sexual Harassment: Sexy Prank Kills Promotion

You find for the Defendant. (Judge Ruled In Defendants Favor)

1. The Plaintiff did not establish that the sexual behavior was discouraged – He participated and never voiced any discomfort to the Defendant, or to anyone else.

2. The Plaintiff did not establish that quid pro quo harassment existed. No explicit positive or negative outcome was offered based on the acceptance of the sexual behavior.

3. No reasonable person would have reacted the way the Plaintiff reacted to the circumstance.

4. The Plaintiff did not establish that a hostile environment was created by the Defendant’s behavior. There was no evidence presented that proved a disruption of the workplace’s functioning.

5. The employer is not liable because there was no evidence proving that a hostile environment existed or that the management was made aware of the environment and neglected to act.

Sexual Harassment: Sexy Prank Kills Promotion

You find for the Plaintiff. (No Clear Evidence to rule in favor of Plaintiff)

1. The Plaintiff made it clear that the sexual behavior was discouraged and unwelcome.
No evidence

2. This is a case of quid pro quo harassment because there was a clear threat/reward offered in exchange for agreement to or acceptance of sexual behavior.
No clear evidence

3. A reasonable person of the same background and in the same situation would have reacted in the same manner. The Plaintiff’s reaction was reasonable.
No evidence/Not likely
4. The Plaintiff established that a hostile environment was created by the Defendant’s behavior. The alleged sexual behavior prevented the Plaintiff from conducting his work duties and disrupted his peace of mind.
No evidence/Hard to prove

5. The employer is liable because the Plaintiff established that a hostile environment was created by the Defendant’s behavior and the management neglected the obvious disruption to the Plaintiff’s work.
No evidence