Employment law – case study
Issue
The basic question that should be looked into in this case regards whether by failing to hire Casey as a rafting guide tantamount to discrimination that could allow her to claim disparate treatment on the basis of sex. The issue involves whether Casey was treated differently in comparison to other employees who are similarly situated such as Rob and thus denied the deserved opportunity to be a guide.
Rules
An employee wishing to make a disparate should show with sufficient evidence that she or he was subjected to different treatment in comparison to others with no common protected characteristics. Thus means they must provide sufficient proof for a prima facie incident to support the discrimination (Miller & Cross, 2012). The prima facie case on the issue must be able to factually infer that the actions against the complainant were motivated by the consideration of the plaintiff association with a member of specific class. The respondent, in response to unlawful discrimination charges must bring forth sufficient evidence that the reason for the charged action is legitimate (Miller & Cross, 2012).
Analysis
In the case of Casey, she has sufficient evidence to show she was subjected to differential treatment in relation to Rob, whose qualification levels were similar. That none of the rivers on which guests were taken were technical and hence, Casey’s experience could fit and that Casey was given an administrative assistant job proved a prima facie case. Amy could not provide legitimate evidence for failing to employ Casey as a guide. ATGA is liable.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether Casey was sexually harassed by Lucas through what appeared to constant “accidental” touching.
Rules
The Civil Rights Act, Title VII has several outlawed kinds of sexual harassment; a hostile environment at work which subjects an employee to unwelcome physical conduct that can be deemed to be of sexual nature and which are so serious that they affect the working conditions of the person; repeated unwanted touching that are so severe that they affect the ability of the employee to comfortably work in the environment; commenting in a person attractiveness in front of other employees (Boland, 2006).
Analysis
In the Casey’s case, Lucas sexually harassed Casey by persistently and constantly subjecting her to unwanted touch which made her working environment so hard that she could no longer undertake her responsibilities comfortably. The physical conduct depicted by Lucas was of sexual nature and so server that Casey had to quit working in the organization. That Lucas told Casey to wear shorter shorts to show off her legs amounted to commenting on her sexual attractiveness amidst other employers.
Issue
The question in this case involves whether ATGA was liable for Lucas sexual harassment meted on Casey. This includes whether lack of personnel policies that dealt with sexual harassment made the firm liable for Lucas behavior.
Rules
If a case of sexual harassment and hostile environment at work are sufficiently proven, an employer can bear the liability for compensation for suffering and punitive damages. The employer will be liable if he was aware of the harassment if he did not take immediate action. The employer must proof that he took reasonable care to avert cases of harassment and embarked on prompt corrective action while the worker unreasonably did not embrace the measures (Boland, 2006).
Analysis
In the above case, the employer was aware of the ongoing harassment that Casey was subjected to by Lucas and did not act immediately. ATGA cannot proof that reasonable care was taken to avert the harassment or took a corrective action that could have embraced by Lucas.
References
Boland, M. L. (2006). Sexual harassment in the workplace. Naperville, Ill: Sphinx Pub.21- 28
Miller, R., & Cross, F. (2012). The legal environment today: Business in its ethical, regulatory, e-commerce, and global setting. Nelson Education. 504-506
