Darcy V. Big Car Company Case Study

769 Words4 Pages
Ms. Darcy v. Big Car Company Martha Leon Laws 310 DeVry University I agree with the Judge's decision being that Ms. Darcy's Attorney Ms. Daggett has made all the arguments based on the sexual harassment law. She has stated what went on inside the Big Car Company and what kind of treatment her client was subjected to. Now he didn't decide the case he is only deciding that the plaintiff has enough facts to go in front of a jury and let them decided the for one there was sexual harassment, second that Big Car Company maintained a hostile workplace and third of all that Clarance had the authority of a supervisor within the company. (A.) On June 24, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court held that, for purposes of employer liability for harassment under Tittle VII, a supervisor is defined as someone who can undertake or effectively recommend tangible employment decisions affecting the victim, in other words, someone who can make a significant change in employment status, such as hiring,…show more content…
This means that the behavior altered the terms, conditions, and/or reasonable expectations of a comfortable work environment for employees. Additionally, the behavior, actions or communications must be discriminatory in nature. A coworker who tells sexually explicit jokes and sends around images of nude people, is guilty of sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment. In conclusion I do think that Ms. Darcy has a case against Big Car Company due to the fact they let the harassment go on when she complained plenty of times. After she complained Mr. Clarance was suspend and Ms. Darcy was removed from that area to a lower paying job also it was stated that he would at least be 300 feet away from her and at the beginning it was like that then they moved her to 30 feet away from him. Now it's for the jury decided.

More about Darcy V. Big Car Company Case Study

Open Document