The notion of liability of the employer is the secondary analysis made regarding hostile environment. To initiate, one must be acquainted with instances in which employers are or are not liable for a claim if hostile environment based on sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The first question one should ask, as described in Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, is who is the alleged offender, a co-worker or a supervisor? In further detail, what constitutes a supervisor? The latter question can be explained by examining Vance v. Ball State University. In that particular case, a woman was racially harassed by a co-worker that had the power to mandate the daily activities. However, the Vance’s co-worker did not have to power to hire, or fire
…show more content…
However, the argument can be presented that in occasions in which it is found that there is neither sexual harassment nor sex discrimination and consequentially no hostile environment, therefore, the employer should not be held liable for any reason. There is no claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1964; therefore, there is no obligation of …show more content…
The precedents strongly influenced one to believe two important notions regards hostile environment. The first notion is that, hostile environment is not a form of hostile environment. Moreover, sexual harassment and sex discrimination claims need to be precisely deciphered to distinguished be between, as Justice Scalia explain, actual violation of the Civil Rights Act or merely actions against a co-worker to provoke tease. One is unable to perceive automatically whether or not there is actual sexual harassment or sex discrimination. The second notion is that an employer is not obligated to grant relief when the plaintiff has not met the requirements to claim a valid sexual harassment or sex discrimination case. The employer may not carry the burden of liability of such matter when the plaintiff’s claim contains no extremely serious sexual comment or behavior that has created harm or an unreasonable interference of the work environment. For the above reasons, one should take the stance that hostile environment does not constitute sexual harassment and/or sex discrimination with no obligation to grant
However, the argument can be presented that in occasions in which it is found that there is neither sexual harassment nor sex discrimination and consequentially no hostile environment, therefore, the employer should not be held liable for any reason. There is no claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1964; therefore, there is no obligation of …show more content…
The precedents strongly influenced one to believe two important notions regards hostile environment. The first notion is that, hostile environment is not a form of hostile environment. Moreover, sexual harassment and sex discrimination claims need to be precisely deciphered to distinguished be between, as Justice Scalia explain, actual violation of the Civil Rights Act or merely actions against a co-worker to provoke tease. One is unable to perceive automatically whether or not there is actual sexual harassment or sex discrimination. The second notion is that an employer is not obligated to grant relief when the plaintiff has not met the requirements to claim a valid sexual harassment or sex discrimination case. The employer may not carry the burden of liability of such matter when the plaintiff’s claim contains no extremely serious sexual comment or behavior that has created harm or an unreasonable interference of the work environment. For the above reasons, one should take the stance that hostile environment does not constitute sexual harassment and/or sex discrimination with no obligation to grant