B. Mary Barnes was employed by the Beaufort Distributing Company of Laramie, Wyo
ID: 361335 • Letter: B
Question
B. Mary Barnes was employed by the Beaufort Distributing Company of Laramie, Wyoming [324 full-time employees]. She worked at an off-site location near Laramie keeping track of the inventory in that facility. Mary was the only female in the building and Milton, her supervisor, subjected her to occasional verbal abuse. [Milton had never received training concerning sexual harassment in his eight years with the company.] He used vulgar language to refer to women and told lewd jokes in her presence but never directly insulted Mary. In addition to dealing with Milton’s comments, Mary grew tired of the behavior of Buford, the Office Supply salesmen who came by every month to take orders and make deliveries. Buford commented on her breasts and often asked her, with a smirk, if she was interested in going to the rodeo with him to see the “bucking broncos” in action. Mary became increasingly frustrated and decided to quit. To avoid angering her spouse, an intensely jealous man, she never filed a complaint with the company’s EEO hotline or complained to the HR office about the behavior of Milton or Buford. Also, following services one Sunday shortly after Buford’s “bucking bronco” remark she complained about Buford, who happened to be a member of her congregation, to Abel, her pastor and the deputy general manager at Beaufort’s Laramie factory [who had also never received training in sexual harassment]. Abel nodded his head sympathetically and said he would pray for Buford’s redemption but declined to speak with him out of concern over distressing Buford’s wife and children. Explain what Mary must prove [i.e., the prima facie case] in order to maintain a claim for sexual harassment [and specify what type of sexual harassment, if any, she could allege against Milton and Buford]. [Assume that she has filed a charge with the EEOC, that the agency found no reasonable cause for the charge and issued a Right to Sue letter.] Discuss how Beaufort would attempt to avoid liability in the case against (A) Milton and (B) Buford. (Be sure to explain your answer for each defendant.] Who would win if the case winds up in federal court? Would the result be the same if the conduct occurred in California? Be sure to explain your answer.
Explanation / Answer
From the details given it is clear that the employer, Beaufort do not have adequate policy to prevent sexual harassment at work place and they do not provide any training to prevent the harassment. Milton behaved in such a way to Mary and created hostile work environment due to lack of knowledge on the policies and the consequences.
When Mary tried to complain regarding harassment from Buford to the management, action was not taken as a result of unawareness on the policies to be followed in case of sexual harassment. The deputy general manager Abel is entitled to provide protection to Mary from sexual harassment and take necessary action against Buford. But he did not act accordingly as a result of company’s failure in providing adequate training to employees and federal law demands the trainings should be conducted in workplace which has more employees.
Hence Beaufort cannot avoid liability in the case against Milton and Buford. But they can lessen the effect by incorporating the steps in workplace to ensure prevention of sexual harassment. They should adopt sexual harassment policies and start giving adequate training to all employees related to sexual harassment and its serious consequences.
If the case winds up in Federal court Mary would win the case. The Title VII under federal law prohibits sexual harassment of hostile work environment and verbal conduct of sexual nature.
In California the sexual harassment cases comes under Fair Employment and Housing Act which prohibits sexual harassment. It is stricter than Title VII of civil rights act which is followed by most of the states and provide greater protection for employees. The case involves the creation of hostile work environment for Mary through unwelcome verbal abuse and failure of employer to ensure prevention of sexual harassment. Both are against the rules of FEHA and the employer would have to pay more for the damages.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.