Discrimination In The Workplace: Anna V. Michael

Employment discrimination can take on various forms. Some types of employment discrimination are axiomatic. For instance, employment discrimination has clearly occurred if a supervisor fires an employee for being a minority. There are others, however, more subtle such as the case of Anna v. Michael. Discrimination was unequivocally happening in this case, but nailing down the reasons are not as clear as the former example. The intent of this paper is to discuss the legal reasons Anna a claim for employment discrimination, and how Title VII provisions are applicable in this case.

Discriminatory Practices Unfortunately, Anna was the victim of several discriminatory practices. Retaliation and harassment are two types of employment discrimination

556-7). Harassment can take on many forms. Sexual harassment – either a quid pro quo or hostile work environment – and religious, racial, or age discrimination can also create a hostile work environment (Kubasek et.al, 2015). In Anna's case, sexual harassment was clearly occuring. Michael was not basing her employment on her willingness to engage in sex, however, he was creating a hostile work environment for her. The first fact is that Michael was requiring closed-door meetings with Anna. This is not a direct violation of the law, however, it does violate company policy. While there is no insight as to why company policy dictates no closed-door meetings, deductive reasoning leads us believe that it is to discourage impropriety between a supervisor and their report. This policy was not being followed and indeed caused other employees to suspect a romantic relationship between Anna and Michael which started rumors. These rumors affected Anna deeply, and Michael did nothing to clear up the rumors even after being asked to do

557). In Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, the court established that sexual harassment did not have to be quid pro quo in order to be legitimate workplace harassment (Department, n.d.). Further, the refusal of Michael to clear up the rumors makes him liable for creating the hostile work environment. As Anna's supervisor, Michael's actions made the employer liable for the sexual harassment as well (Kubasek et.al., 2015). Title VII comes in to play when considering Anna's gender. Having closed-door meetings with a male superior creates the illusion that a romantic relationship is happening. This only occurred because Anna is a female. Had this been a male having closed-door meetings with his male superior, allegations of a sexual relationship would not have been established. These harassment charges were further exacerbated by the fact that Anna was unable to advance in her