Workplace Injustices at Happy Valley, Inc.

Question 1

A) In 250 words or less, identify, what, if anything, Happy Valley, Inc. did wrong?

Happy Valley, Inc. violated the NLRA by imposing a broad attendance policy. Employees could misinterpret the policy as a tardy employee being sent home for the day, but not terminated. The policy was designed to punish employees and it placed constraints on concerted activity. Additionally, Happy Valley Inc., did not state what “just cause” was in instances of terminations. When Mr. Hackenberg was terminated, there was no due process. In addition, this new policy was only for employees that had been with the company for less than five years. The policy showed favoritism to the senior employees.

B) In 250 words or less, identify what recourse, if

(2) The harassment resulted in tangible employment action or was sufficiently serve or pervasive to alter working conditions and create a hostile environment.

(3) The harassment was unwelcome.

(4) There is a basis for attributing liability to the employer.

In terms of Kristine’s case:

(1) Kristine could claim that the harassment was based on her sex. Melissa singled her out as she was the only other woman on the team.

(2) According to the case, Melissa targeted Kristine with a double dose of her lewd comments and inappropriate physical actions because she knew Kristine didn’t approve of the conduct. This is considered as a form of severe harassment.

(3) Kristine told her co-workers that the conduct was unwelcome.

(4) Kristine did not notify Bo of the conduct so CKK is not liable.

Kristen would not be able to establish a prima facie case of harassment based on a hostile work environment because she did not report the abuse to the employer.

C) In 250 words or less, analyze whether CKK can establish an affirmative defense to the alleged harassment.

To determine if CKK can establish an affirmative defense to the alleged harassment, the following test must be