Mgmt 520 Essay

423 Words2 Pages
This memo is in respect to the case brought against Teddy’s Supplies (Teddy’s) former employee, Ms. Virginia Pollard. In this case, Teddy’s has been found guilty of sexual harassment by the New Jersey Commission on Human Rights, and awarded her back wages and damages. Teddy appeal to Circuit Court, overturned the original decision but was ordered to reinstate Pollard to her old position, Pollard has appealed that decision. From my own view, I think that Teddy’s is liable on the fact that Ms. Pollard has been a victim of gender-based harassment at Teddy’s and participated by the same supervisor. This fact will be critical later despite there was no file on a formal complaint by Ms. Pollard against her co-worker/supervisor, based on her experience it should be understood that she felt threatened by the continued and apparently sanctioned abuse. From the record, when she attempted to report the incident to Mr. King, he responded in additional harassing statements. However, Ms. Pollard had recently been rated as exemplary in her work on the performance review and there were no complaints included. The employee’s comments on this case did not provide any defense for Teddy’s action. Allowing her direct supervisor to participate in the company’s defense would be damage if given an opportunity to Ms. Pollard to ask any question in the court. I would want you to defend Mr. King’s character in that forum as well. The potential damage that may be awarded in this case, Teddy’s has substantial exposure based on the negligent actions of its employee, Mr. King, the lack of appropriate administrative oversight, and the unfortunate behaviors presented by the workers in Ms. Pollard’s immediate work area. I believe if there is a hostile work environment, companies can escape liability if they are able to present an affirmative defense. Under Tittle VII, if a supervisor

More about Mgmt 520 Essay

Open Document