In the case of the female employee vs. the unwanted touching by the supervisor, the court should have found the car dealership guilty of Enviromental Sexual Harassment.
She had reported actions of this manager on each of the four times this unwanted touching had occurred and was told to document it. She did that but no action was ever taken. The car dealership did not provide this employee with a safe working enviroment. In addition, when looking over the Elements of a Sexual Harrassment Claim, I feel that 3 of the 4 things we discussed apply to this case: 1. pervasive and severe behavior - I believe putting his hand up her skirt qualifies as pervasive; 2. documentation - she did that; 3. the harasee is a member of a protected class since she is a woman. I don't know whether or not, these incidents affected her job performance, I would imagine it probably did.
When this case got to court, if the lawyer for the car dealership was any good at his job, he could have asked her why she continued to sit next to this guy if she viewed his touching as unwanted and possibily could have saved his company some money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Nice post. What was the issue of material fact in this case? And, was this issue of material fact enough that a rational jury would side with the complainant?
Your thoughts please.
Post a Comment