Linda Meyer, an employee of Giant Telecom, Inc., was the ~ of a prime and very s

Question

Linda Meyer, an employee of Giant Telecom, Inc., was the ~ of a prime and very successful Giant Telecom, Inc. phone store in Delray Beach, Florida. She believes that she was transferred improperly to a less lucrative phone store and that her supervisor (Cleland Wilson) hired a less qualified woman (Diane Maser) to replace her and manage the "better" Delray Beach location. Mr. Wilson, the supervisor, had an ongoing "romantic" relationship with Ms. Maser prior to her transfer to the Delray Beach store. Mr. Wilson and Ms. Maser lived together for several years in Orlando where both were employed by Giant Telecom, Inc. in the regional sales office. This original relationship (which was completely voluntary and reciprocal) apparently "ended" some time in the spring of 1991 at the initiation of Ms. Maser. Following the "break-up," Mr. Wilson tried to reconcile with Ms. Maser but she would have nothing to do with him -- she told him that their relationship was over "forever". About six months after the breakup, Wilson became a regional supervisor for Giant Telecom, Inc.. Maser soon realized that Wilson was in a position to "help" her in her career advancement. Immediately after Wilson’s promotion, Maser had a change of heart about him. She called him and told him that there could be some hope for them in the future. Not wanting to be misunderstood, she told Wilson very explicitly about what she expected if she reestablished a sexual relationship with him -- she wanted a promotion to the position of store manager in one of the stores in Wilson’s region. Wilson jumped at the opportunity to resume his "relationship" with Maser and promised that if they "got back together" he would indeed see to it that she was promoted to a store manager. The couple started "dating" again about two months before Wilson "arranged" Ms. Maser’s replacement of Linda Meyer as manager of the Delray Beach store. Shortly after her appointment as store manager, Maser started to have second thoughts about continuing her "relationship" with Wilson. When she spoke to Wilson about ending the "relationship" for a second time, she came away with the distinct impression that her job was conditioned on her continuing in the "relationship" with Wilson and that Wilson would fire her if and when she ended their "relationship." Ms. Maser has recently complained to the company’s EEO officer that she believes that she is the victim of sexual harassment. Ms. Meyer has also complained to the same EEO officer that she believes that she was improperly transferred and that she too was the victim of sexual harassment and/or sex discrimination. Meyer believes that Wilson violated her Title VII rights by participating in a "scheme" that allowed Ms. Maser to trade sexual intimacy for job advancement and in using his position as file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Joe/Desktop/past%20exams/EmpDiscF95.htm (1 of 5)7/6/2006 3:01:04 PM Perna - Employment Discrimination - Fall 1995 supervisor to reward Ms. Maser into resuming and maintaining a sexual relationship with him. Both women maintain that they have been seriously harmed by Wilson’s activities. Assume that you are the chief in house attorney at Giant Telecom and that you have been recently told of this situation. Officials at the company are concerned that both women might pursue legal action against the company. The company wants your assessment of the viability and strength of the women’s cases. Analyze fully the company’s legal position

Explanation / Answer

In this given case we have three employees entangeled in a scenario .

1.Ms Meyer

2.Ms Maser

3.Mr Wilson

Yes ,based on the vicarious liability , the organization does stand responsible for Mr Wilson's act and is vulnerable to several legislation by both the women and Mr Wilson who may defend himself

The legal issues that can crop up are

1.Mr Wilson undue favouritism to Ms Masor on conditions of hiring ,promotions and reatining in the job

2.Ms Meyer on being discriminated against her skills and being transfered to accomodate Ms Maser

3.Ms Maser on quid pro quo-"this was that" - seeking sexual intimacy for promtoin of the job

4.Mr Wilson for creating a hostile work environment for both women in different scenarios

In the given case , both the women cases are viable but not equally strong

Ms Meyer - has a strong defence on discrimination and unfair trasfer

while Ms Maser can file against sexual harrassment ,but her case include her consent which if proven can make her case weak against the allegations she has raised

Mr Wilson at his end will be held laible for exercising his power and role in exploiting two different women employee for his own advanatge

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse L
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.