Sexual harassment lawsuit: causes and outcomes

Employer Liability for Sexual Harassment

The judge's decision was appropriate for this case because it was proven that Ms. Darcy did sufficiently state the facts in the case. It was proven that Clarence was a supervisor, that there was sexual harassment, and it was a hostile work environment. The lewd remarks and having to constantly touch Ms. Darcy was not isolated events and was not just a few times, constituting the fact that it was on a continual basis. Talking to his supervisors about it brought no results.

The environment was a hostile workplace in the respects it was continual, it was more than a reasonable women would have accepted, and the demotion shows retaliation from the company in the end. It shows hostility in respects of Clarence following her up and down the line and stopping her in the hall to say lewd remarks to her. Other company employees witnessing these things also proved the environment was hostile.

A person is a supervisor if they have authority to undertake or recommend tangible employment decisions affecting the employee and they have the authority to direct the employee's daily work. The tangible employment actions are decisions that significantly change another employee's employment status, including hiring, firing, promoting, demoting, or reassigning the employee. Clarence was a supervisor by law because he guided the team members, had the ability to assign tasks, and monitored the team members. He had the ability to reassign team members because if he was displeased, he would assign them undesirable tasks, which also helps to show the hostility in the work environment.