Burlington Industries, Inc. v Ellerth 524 U.S. 742 (1998)
Facts:
Kimberly Ellerth worked as salesperson in of the divisions of Burlington Industries for fifteen months. She quitted her job and alleged that she had been subject of constant sexual harassment by one of his supervisors. During her employed she did not report about sexual harassment to her supervisors and after quitting the job she suit against Burlington for the constructive discharge in violation of Title VII. District court found that the behavior of supervisor created the hostile work environment. The defendants claim was they never knew about the situation and was not reported by the employee about the issue so that they could act upon it. The court of appeals reversed imposing vicarious liability on Burlington.
Issues:
Was there enough evidence to prove the quid-pro-quo and hostile environment existed for
…show more content…
The Supreme Court held the decision by mentioning the employees who refuses unwelcome and threating sexual advances may not suffer any tangible job consequences, however they may recover against employer and it doesn’t need to prove the negligence act of the employer. Quid-pro-quo instance was involved in this case because Ms. Ellerth had to bear with the sexual attention and remarks creating a hostile environment. The action of supervisor was directly related with the scope of environment and it was directly tied with the job benefits therefore, Burlington had to impose the vicarious liability. The Court stated that "a tangible employment actions [which could not be taken but for the agency relationship] taken by a supervisor becomes for Title VII purposes, the act of the employer." Employer should be liable for the action Ms Ellerth faced even though Burlington was not aware of the situation cause by one of their
Belanger v. Swift Transportation, Inc. is a case concerned with the qualified privilege of employers. In this case Belanger, a former employee of Swift Transportation, sued the company for libel in regard to posting the reason for his termination on a government data website accessible to other potential employers. Swift has a policy of automatic termination if a driver is in an accident, unless it can be proved that it was unpreventable. When Belanger rear ended another vehicle while driving for Swift the company determined the accident was preventable, while Belanger maintained it was not. Upon his termination Swift posted on a database website for promoting highway safety that he was fired because he “did not meet the company’s safety standards,”
III. Issue. The issue is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer appellee on the employee appellant’s sexual harassment claim, and whether the court was right in excluding evidence regarding the sexual
The “quid pro quo” harassment culprit is a boss or supervisor that gives certain employees below them benefits if they enter into a sexual relationship, or grant sexual favors to the boss/supervisor (Shaw, p.444). This form of sexual harassment is hard to argue, the suppressor is clearly taking advantage of the subordinate, because the subordinate is at risk for losing their job if they don’t participate.
...that was the first thing that caught my interest, later when reading the case and discovering that two lower cases had both ruled against the plaintiff, that is when I decided to go further in the case. I wanted to know why it was that the lower courts had ruled against her anf not for her. The decision the court made was fair, I agree with the court. It was the fairest ruling the court could have made towards Suders considering that in reality she had lost the lower court ruling because of the fact she didn't really have sufficient evidence that indeed her supervisors had been harassing her. Therefore, I think the outcome of this particular case was fair and I would have to agree with the decision the United States Supreme Court made towards Suders.
Title IX nowhere states that an individual can receive a monetary solution whenever a case is taken to court. With this case Franklin had no kind of justice from the school or the law before she filed her lawsuit. She was persuaded into thinking that she did not have to press any criminal charges against Hill. When taken into district court, her case was dismissed due to the fact that Title IX did not support monetary damages. When the Supreme Court took over the case, the court reversed the district court’s decision. The supreme court stated that monetary damages were available in a private right of action under Title IX such as Franklins case. The second question being brought up in this case is what "sex" cases are ruled under Title IX. The Title IX law specifies sex discrimination in education and does not refer to sexual harassment. In Franklin 's case it is a case doing with sexual harassment and sexual abuse. The analogy with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it prohibits sex discrimination in employment, the courts faced an issue prior to Franklins case to find that sexual harassment has been viewed as actionable sex discrimination under Title VII by both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and federal
...d to the appellant , yet the defendant company itself had no appropriate measures or policy for dealing with the sexual harassment.
Case Name: Dyer v. National By-Products, Inc., Supreme Court of Iowa, 1986., 380 N.W.2d 732
McKenna violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and was completely liable for his actions. Similar cases such as Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth & Faragher v. City of Boca Raton(1998) – Employer is always liable when a hostile environment is created by a supervisor that results in tangible employment action (e.g., termination). It is a also evident from the case of Harris vs. Forklift (1993)- psychological damage not necessary for illegal “hostile or abusive environment” that a “reasonable person” would find hostile or abusive support that Mr. Mckenna is liable.
The names and sex of all of the Junior Executive Secretaries that were terminated are important to this case. A wrongful termination, Title VII claim was brought against Greene’s. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states, individuals are protected against discrimination on bases of sex, religion, race, color, and national origin. Knowing all of the terminated Junior Executive Secretaries sex, can determine whether there was a male employee terminated as well. A male working within that title would suggest Greene’s did not terminate Ms. Lawson due to her
The plaintiff was a patient at Mesilla Valley Hospital at the inpatient mental facility, while she was seeking treatment there; one of their staff Joseph Herrera (technician) sexually battered her. Plaintiff is suing the County of Dona Ana, because Herrera used to work for them as a detention sergeant, during his employment with the county he was known to be sexually abusive towards female inmates. His supervisors were aware of his behavior and were arranging his suspension and eventually terminating him; nevertheless Herrera quit before any further action was taken against him. Before his resignation Herrera asked for a letter of recommendation, he was given one that mentioned he was an excellent worker
In the case of EEOC v. Management Hospitality of Rancine, Katrina Shisler and Michelle Powell, who were servants at an International House of Pancakes restaurant franchise in Rancine, Wisconsin, alleged that they were sexually harassed by an assistant manager Rosalio Gutierrez. The restaurant franchise was owned by Management Hospitality of Rancine, Inc. (MHR). During the servants’ time of employment, both women made claims that they were subjected to frequent sexually explicit comments, gestures and innuendos on the job. Shisler reported the behavior to another assistant manager, Nadia Del Rio; however, she blew off the claims. Shisler and Powell then reported Gutierrez’s behavior to general manager, Michelle Dahl, who also dismissed their claims. On behalf of Shisler and Powell, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued MHR alleging that Gutierrez created a hostile work environment; therefore, they were liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A jury ruled in favor of the two women; however, MHR appealed the ruling with the argument that it was not liable, because it had taken acceptable corrective and preventative measurements with regards to the harassment.
...e Court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1994), and the employer can be held vicariously liable under the standards of Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998), so she should prevail in her case against her employer.
Sexual harassment is an important issue in every business; if left unattended it could cost companies millions in damages. In 1980 the Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. From 1978 to 1980, sexual harassment cases brought against companies cost them $189 million. This number rose to $267 million from 1985-1987. Damages are just measured only by numbers. Sexual harassment can cause harm to a company's image, reputation, customers, as well as their revenue.
This case was about a father by the name of Bob Latimer, this man had a daughter who was suffering with a disease called cerebral palsy. The disease was unfortunately entrenched with his daughter since her birth and was caused by brain damage. The disease made her immobile with the exception of the rare movements she showed through facial expressions or head movements. Twelve year old Tracey Latimer was in continuous pain every moment of her life and she was incapable of taking care of herself despite her age. She was bedridden and could not communicate with anyone in her family; she was more like a living corpse. Hoping only to better her condition, her family took her through several surgeries where some were successful but did not really benefit her in any way. Tracey had five to six seizures everyday and her condition would only get worse. All this was unbearable to her father Mr. Latimer like it would be to any loving father and it was then that he decided to end her pain and suffering. Latimer put Tracey into the cab of his truck and suffocated her. He did this by attaching a pipeline into the exhaust of the cab and this allowed carbon monoxide to enter the car which eventually leads to the painless death of his daughter. He was first convicted in 1994 of second degree murder with a life sentence term of 25 years and without parole for 10 years. Latimer then appealed his case to the Supreme Court and the previous decision was upheld. However, there was an error found in the procedure of the trial as some of the jury members were questioned on their beliefs in relation to the crime on the basis of religion, mercy killings, and etc. which then constituted the trial as unfair und...
Sexual harassment in the workplace has been a huge problem in recent history. It can happen to anyone, and it can happen everywhere. It can affect all types of races, genders and ages. Statistics today show that more and more sexual harassment has become an issue due to the large number of cases presented. Mainstream media becomes consumed covering sexual harassment because of the high-profile cases.