-------------------------------------------------
Top of Form

Grade Details | | | | 1. | Question: | Teddy's Supplies' CEO has asked you to advise him on the facts of the case and your opinion of their potential liability. He wants to settle the case. Write a memo to him that states your view of whether the company is exposed to liability on all issues you feel are in play. Include in your memo any laws that apply and any precedent cases either for or against Teddy's case that impact liability. Include in the memo your suggested "offer of settlement" to Virginia. Back up your offer using your analysis of the case against Teddy's. | | Your Answer: | Dear Mr. Moore, After reviewing this case, I can state that Teddy’s
These pranks interfered with her job performance and caused her a lot of stress. The court would find this conduct to violate Title VII because the plaintiff (Ms. Pollard) was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment, the harassment was based on sex, it affected a term or condition of her employment. Also, the employer could have known about the harassment and still they failed to take necessary actions to make Pollards job easier. b) The forms of sexual harassment, I suspect NJ Human Rights commission found Virginia Pollard had been a victim of are: • Whether the conduct was unwelcoming • Whether there was verbal and / or physical abuse • Whether the conduct was repetitive • Whether the conduct was hostile and offensive • Whether other coworkers participated in performing the harassment • Whether the harassment was towards one individual All these bullet points show that Virginia Pollard was definitely a victim of sexual harassment. c) I don’t there is adequate defense to sexual harassment that Teddy’s has in this case because it is clear from the evidence that Teddy’s Supplies is in violation of Title VII. One of Teddy’s Supplies supervisors, Steve King knew that 6 male coworkers were playing pranks on Pollard. These pranks were not severe but they clearly show that the conducts of the male colleagues were not welcomed by Pollard. These cases illustrates hostile work environment: 1. Hall v.