Sources used in this document:

2. The NJ Human Rights commission found that Pollard was the victim of sexual harassment and disparate treatment. Please answer these questions:

a. Provide the most current definition of "sexual harassment," including a definition of quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment. Name an appellate court case in which an employer was found liable for either quid pro quo or hostile environment sexual harassment. Describe the facts of the case and the decision the court came to in the case. Include the citation to the case and a link to it online. Would the case apply to Pollard's case? Why or why not? Would you want to use this case in Teddy's favor or Pollard's favor?

The case in question brings to mind a far more prominent case which occurred in 2006. The case of Anucha Browne Sanders is a particularly compelling one as it strongly reinforces a precedent with respect to the responsibility to be taken by organizations within which sexual harassment is allowed to persist or even enabled by a complicit organizational leadership. This is said to have been the scenario in the case of Anucha Brown Sanders vs. Isiah Thomas, the New York Knicks and Madison Square Garden. Based on testimony from many individuals associated with or employed by the organization, including prominent basketball players, a jury established that Thomas was guilty of continuous and unwanted advances upon Browne Sanders and that at times his language toward her was abusive and laced with obscenities. The grand jury further established that the Knicks had largely facilitated a culture of sexual inequality, laxness with respect to harassment issues and a general objectification of