A Case Study: Burlington Industries V. Ellerth

713 Words 3 Pages
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…
To answer the first question, Burlington Industries v. Ellerth explains that if the offender is the supervisor, the employer has the complete liability unless the employer to reasonable action to address the sexual harassment or the alleged victim didn’t use the policy guidelines barring sexual harassment his/her advantage. An example in which the employer took reasonable care is when the employer threatens to terminate the offender’s employment if the problem persists. The problem with this argument this that, in certain instances, it is hard for the employer to be notified, to notice, or to be aware of the sexual harassment until it’s too late. Furthermore, an example in which an employee didn’t take advantage of the policy guidelines barring sexual harassment is when the alleged victim takes a significant amount of time after the regulatory time to file a complaint about the sexual harassment. There is usually a set amount of time that is given to employees to file a …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

Related Documents