Provide support for the questions below 3-4 sentences per question

Freund v. Hi-Tech Satellite, 185 Fed. Appx. 782 (11th Cir. 2006).

Stan Freund installed home satellite and entertainment systems for a company that sold these systems. The company scheduled installations, although Mr. Freund could reschedule them. The installer worked on his own, but was required to wear a company shirt, follow certain minimum specifications for installations, not perform any additional services for customers without the company’s approval, and call the company to confirm that installations had been made and to report any problems. Mr. Freund was paid a set amount per installation. He used his own vehicle and tools. Mr. Freund was free to perform installations for other companies and to hire others to do installations. However, while other installers did accept jobs from other companies, Mr. Freund worked six days a week for this company.

Is Mr. Freund an employee with rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act? Explain.

Purdham v. Fairfax County School Board, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4644 (4th Cir.).

A full-time safety and security assistant at a public school also coached the high school golf team. His coaching duties included supervising tryouts, coaching players during tournaments, conducting daily practices, transporting team members to matches, scheduling matches, communicating with parents, handling the team’s finances, and fundraising. In all, the coach spent an estimated 300 to 450 hours per year on his coaching activities, in addition to his full-time employment with the school district. For his services as coach, he received a “stipend” of a little over $2,000 per year, reimbursement for travel and other expenses, and paid administrative leave for coaching activities that occurred during school hours. He was paid separately and on an hourly basis for his work as a safety and security assistant. His continued employment was not predicated on his also agreeing to coach. He sought overtime pay for weeks in which the combination of his school duties and coaching required him to work more than 40 hours. The school contended that in his capacity as a golf coach, he was a volunteer with no entitlement to overtime pay.

Was the coach an employee or volunteer with respect to his coaching activities? Explain.

Use the file below to answer the next questions please respond in 3-4 sentences

Based on the content of the case study, what makes a comment inappropriate? The intention of the speaker? How the subject hears it? Please explain in detail.

Researchers have show that a single sexual harassment claim can dramatically reduce perceptions of fairness in hiring and promotion at that organization. What’s your opinion? Why? What’s been your experience?

Chapter 8
Sexual Harassment
Employment Law for BUSINESS sixth edition
Dawn D. BENNETT-ALEXANDER and Laura P. HARTMAN
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Copyright © 2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Statutory Basis
It shall be unlawful employment practice for an employer—
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of such individual’s . . . sex [gender]. . . . Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 42 U.S.C. 2000e2(a).
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other
verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual
harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either
explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s
employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an
individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting
such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of
unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or
creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
29 C.F.R. Section 1604.11 (a) (EEOC Sexual Harassment
Guidelines).
8–2
Since Eden…and Counting
• Sexual harassment suits are still a
frequent occurrence
• Sexual harassment class action trials
– The “white buffalo”
• Cost to businesses
• Liability is avoidable
8–3
Since Eden…and Counting
(continued)
L01
• Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas
– Thomas was head of the EEOC
– Increase in complaints after the hearings
• First U.S. Supreme Court sexual
harassment case heard in 1986
• Recognizing sexual harassment
– Mixed messages
• Stress as a result of sexual harassment
• Tangible costs
8–4
Where do Sexual Harassment
Considerations Leave the Employer?
• The intent of the law is not that the
workplace either become totally devoid
of sexuality on the one hand or be given
completely over to employees who would
misuse the law on the other.
• Unwelcome activity
• Anti-sexual harassment policies
8–5
`
`
Sexual Harassment in General
• Two theories
– Quid pro quo
– Hostile environment
• Theories not controlling for purposes of
determining employer liability
• Rabidue v. Osceola Refinancing Co.
• Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.
8–6
Sexual Harassment in General
(continued)
• Most sexual harassment takes place
between males and females, with the
male as the harasser and the female as the
harasee
• Males can be harassed but often do not
bring suit for fear of ridicule
• Title VII does not protect employees from
discrimination on the basis of affinity
orientation
8–7
Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment
L02
• The employee is required to engage in
sexual activity in exchange for workplace
entitlements or benefits such as
promotions, raises, or continued
employment
• An employer can limit a supervisor’s
ability to abuse power by:
– Choosing supervisory employees carefully
– Having in place a system with adequate
monitors and checks
8–8
Hostile Environment Sexual
Harassment
L03
• To sustain a finding of hostile environment
sexual harassment, it is generally required that:
– The harassment be unwelcome by the harassee
– The harassment be based on gender
– The harassment be sufficiently severe or pervasive
to create an abusive working environment
– The harassment affect a term, condition, or privilege
of employment
– The employer had actual or constructive knowledge
of the sexually hostile working environment and
took no prompt or adequate remedial action
• Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson
8–9
Unwelcome Activity
• Basis of hostile environment sexual
harassment actions
• Harasser actions can be direct or indirect
• Evidence that the activity is unwelcome
can also be direct or indirect
• Unwelcomeness parameters
8 – 10
Comparison
• Quid pro quo sexual harassment
– Workplace benefit promised, given to, or withheld from harassee
by harasser
– In exchange for sexual activity by harassee
– Generally accompanied by a paper trail
• Hostile environment sexual harassment
– Activity by harasser, toward harassee that
– Is unwanted by the harassee
– Is based on harassee’s gender
– Creates for harassee a hostile or abusive work environment
– Unreasonably interferes with harassee’s ability to do his or her
job
– Is sufficiently severe and/or pervasive
– Affects a term or condition of harassee’s employment
8 – 11
Severe and Pervasive Requirement
• Does the harassing activity unreasonably
interfere with an employee’s ability to
perform?
• Was the activity an isolated occurrence?
– If isolated, was it severe?
• Claims do not require findings of severe
psychological harm
Severe and pervasive activity
Harassing activity that is more than an occasional act or is so
serious that it is the basis for liability.
8 – 12
Severe and Pervasive Requirement
(continued)
• Circumstances that can determine
whether an environment is hostile or
abusive:
– Frequency of the discriminatory conduct
– Its severity
– Whether it is physically threatening or
humiliating or a mere offensive utterance
– Whether it unreasonably interferes with an
employee’s work performance
8 – 13
“Love Contracts”
L04
• How they work
• What is included
• What it should do
• How it is useful
• Is it legally defensible
• Is it worth the effort
8 – 14
Perspective Used to Determine
Severity
L05
• Reasonable person standard
• “Reasonable woman” or “reasonable
victim” standard
• Viewing severity and pervasiveness from
different perspectives renders different
results
8 – 15
“Sexual” Requirement Explained
L06
• Sex versus gender
• Anti-female animus
– Derogatory terms when referring to women
– Often accompanied by sexually based
activity
• Harassment by electronic means
8 – 16
Employer Liability for Sexual
Harassment
L07
• Supervisor toward employee (tangible
employment action)
• Supervisor toward employee (no tangible
employment action)
• Coworker harassment third-party
harassment of employee
• An employer can be held liable for sexual
harassment committed by someone who
is not an employee, such as a client
8 – 17
Other Important Considerations
• Determining the truth of allegations
– Inherent plausibility
– Demeanor
– Motive to falsify
– Corroboration
– Past record
L08
• Retaliation and employee privacy
• Corrective action
• Damages and jury trials
• Tort and criminal liability
8 – 18
Summary
• Consensual activity is not a violation of
Title VII.
• Unwelcome sexual advances that cause one
gender to work under conditions or terms of
employment different from those of the other
gender constitute sexual harassment for which
the employer may be liable.
• Employers will be responsible only if the sexual
harassment is severe and pervasive.
• Activity does not have to be sexual in nature to
constitute sexual harassment.
8 – 19
Summary (continued)
• Employers should treat all sexual
harassment complaints seriously and act
on them quickly.
• Prevention is imperative to avoid sexual
harassment claims and lessen liability.
• Employers need a strong anti–sexual
harassment policy that is vigorously
enforced.
8 – 20