PSWC Business Law Question

Please respond to both of these question sets.

Question Set 1

Farmers’ Organic, Inc. (Farmers), located in northern California, produces a variety of organic dairy products including yogurt, butter, and cheese. In the wake of the #MeToo movement, Farmers directed you to create an internal complaint procedure, which you wrote and distributed in record time. The first step of the procedure provides that hourly employees should initially present any and all work-related complaints to their immediate supervisor.

During your lunch break yesterday, you ran into Jennifer, who told you that another hourly employee, Kim, was being sexually harassed by Troy, one of the supervisors in their department, which is not unionized. Jennifer doesn’t want to get on Troy’s bad side and would like you to keep the conversation confidential. She thinks that Kim also wants to avoid antagonizing Troy and would be reluctant to file a complaint.

1. Describe what, if anything, you would do after speaking with Jennifer. Identify by name and describe the applicable laws and legal principles.
3. If you decide to launch an investigation, explain why you would do so and describe each step in your investigative process. Identify by name and describe applicable laws and legal principles.
5. If you decide not to launch an investigation, explain why you would not do so. Identify by name and describe applicable laws and legal principles.
6. Describe what, if anything, you would do instead of or in addition to investigating. Identify by name and describe applicable laws and legal principles.

Be sure to provide specific identifying information for the statutes, cases (the name of the case and a citation), and legal principles that you reference.

Question Set 2

Today, Jennifer circled back to you and mentioned that a coworker, Mike, appears to have joined in on the harassment. Mike is a member of the United Drivers Union (UDU), which represents a bargaining unit of Farmers’ drivers.

1. Describe what, if anything, you would do after hearing this information about Mike. Identify by name and describe the applicable laws and legal principles.

If you decide to launch an investigation, explain why you would do so and describe each step in your investigative process. Identify by name and describe applicable laws and legal principles.If you decide not to launch an investigation, explain why you would not do so. Identify by name and describe applicable laws and legal principles.

2. State what, if anything, you would do instead of or in addition to investigating. Identify by name and describe applicable laws and legal principles.
3. Might Mike be entitled to a Garrity warning? If so, explain what that is and why it might or might not apply here.
4. Might Mike be entitled to a Loudermill hearing? If so, explain what that is and why you might or might not have that obligation.
5. Might Mike be entitled to a Johnnie’s Poultry warning? If so, explain what that is and why you might or might not have that obligation.
6. What other rights might Mike have in this process? Identify by name and describe applicable laws and legal principles.

Be sure to provide specific identifying information for the statutes, cases (the name of the case and a citation), and legal principles that you reference.

Please respond to each question in the order in which it appears.

Warning Concerning Copyright Restrictions
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the
reproduction of copyrighted material.
Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are permitted
to furnish a reproduction if used for “private study, scholarship or research.” A
second condition is that only single articles or chapters of a work totaling no more
than 15% of the total number of pages be reproduced. Any use of a reproduction
that exceeds these guidelines may be considered copyright infringement.
This institution reserves the right to refuse any request for reproduction that is
deemed a violation of current copyright guidelines.
This material has been reproduced from the following source:
Court of Appeals of the State of Washington. City of Seattle, Washington Court
of Appeals Decision. Filed March 7, 2011.
Date prepared: 5/16/2011
This material is presented for use solely by authorized faculty and students of the
Pennsylvania State University. Further reproduction or distribution of this material
is expressly prohibited.
This material may be made available in alternative media upon request. Please
contact Course Reserves Services at ereserves@psulias.psu.edu or by phone at
(814) 863-0324.
If you are experiencing problems viewing or printing this document, please visit
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/reserve/useelectronicreserves.htm for
troubleshooting information. If further assistance is required, please send a
description of the problem to ereserves@psulias.psu.edu that includes the
course and instructor for which the material is on reserve, as well as the title of
the material.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
CITY OF SEATTLE, SEATTLE
FIRE DEPARTMENT,
Respondents,
v.
THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS COMMISSION,
Defendant,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2898,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 64396-7-I
DIVISION ONE
PUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: March 7, 2011
Leach, A.C.J. — Johnnie’s Poultry Co.1 prohibits an employer subject to
federal labor laws from interviewing a bargaining unit member employee in
preparation for an unfair labor practices proceeding without telling the employee
the nature of the questioning and informing the employee that participation is
voluntary and will not result in any reprisal.
We must decide whether the
Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) erred in
holding that the city of Seattle (City) must comply with the requirements of
Johnnie’s Poultry when it interviews bargaining unit members in preparation for
1
146 N.L.R.B. 770, 775 (1964), enforcement denied on other grounds,
344 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1965).
NO. 64396-7-I / 2
a disciplinary grievance arbitration.
We hold that PERC erred in applying
Johnnie’s Poultry to the employer interviews in this case and affirm the trial court
as to this issue.
We must also decide whether RCW 41.56.140(4) required the City to
disclose certain information about its interviews with bargaining unit members to
the International Association of Firefighters, Local 2898 (Union) and whether the
City provided a sufficient explanation for withholding the requested information.
We hold the City was not required to divulge the information, but substantial
evidence supports PERC’s finding that the City’s explanation was inadequate.
As a result, we affirm the trial court’s decision on this issue in part and reverse in
part.
BACKGROUND
The Union represents all supervisory personnel of the City of Seattle Fire
Department holding the rank of battalion chief and deputy chief. In October
2004, the Union filed a grievance on behalf of Battalion Chief Molly Douce,
disputing disciplinary action the City took against her. The Union and the City
scheduled arbitration.
In preparation for the arbitration hearing, the City’s
attorney interviewed three deputy chiefs about their knowledge of the facts
leading to the dispute. Upon learning of the interviews, the Union sent an e-mail
to the City’s attorney, asserting that the City could not question members of its
bargaining unit without arranging the interviews through the Union. The Union
also asked the City for the identities of everyone already interviewed, the
-2-
NO. 64396-7-I / 3
questions asked and information provided, and a copy of all notes and
statements. The City refused to comply with this request.
The Union filed an unfair labor practices complaint with PERC, alleging
employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1)
and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4). The hearing examiner
dismissed the complaint, finding that the interviewed employees were not
questioned about activity involving their statutory rights and therefore the City
did not interfere with those rights. The examiner found that the information
sought by the Union was either protected by the work-product privilege or that it
was easily obtainable by the Union through other means.
The Union appealed to PERC. PERC affirmed the hearing examiner’s
dismissal of the unfair labor practices complaint because the Union failed to
show that the interviews were coercive. In so doing, however, PERC decided
that the rights enunciated in Johnnie’s Poultry, a 1964 decision of the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB), apply to employees covered by Washington
State’s collective bargaining laws. PERC also found that no privilege protected
the names of the interviewees, copies of their statements, and redacted copies
of the City attorney’s notes and ordered the City to provide the Union with that
information.
Finally, PERC found the City’s explanation
for withholding the
requested information untimely, as the City fully responded only after the Union
filed its unfair labor practices complaint.
The City appealed PERC’s decision to the superior court.
-3-
The court
NO. 64396-7-I / 4
reversed PERC’s finding that the City violated the disclosure requirements of
RCW 41.56, adopting the hearing examiner’s rationale. Further, the court held
that the City was not required to comply with Johnnie’s Poultry, stating, “This
court concludes the commission erred by adopting a per se application of
Johnnie’s Poultry (no evidence in this case of coercion) and further erred by
applying it to interviewing witnesses in preparation of an arbitration.”
The Union appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review PERC’s decision under the standards set forth in chapter
34.05
RCW,
the
Washington
Administrative
Procedures
Act.2
RCW
34.05.570(3) requires reversal of an agency order when the decision is based on
an error of law,3 is not based on substantial evidence,4 or is arbitrary or
capricious.5 In reviewing an agency’s order, the appellate court sits in the same
position as the superior court.6 Review is therefore limited to the record of the
administrative tribunal, not that of the trial court.7
A reviewing court must uphold an agency’s determination of fact “unless
the court’s review of the entire record leaves it with the definite and firm
2
City of Pasco v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 119 Wn.2d 504, 506,
833 P.2d 381 (1992).
3
RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).
4
RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).
5
RCW 34.05.570(3)(i).
6
D.W. Close Co. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 143 Wn. App. 118, 125-26,
177 P.3d 143 (2008).
7
Renton Educ. Ass’n v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 101 Wn.2d 435,
440, 680 P.2d 40 (1984).
-4-
NO. 64396-7-I / 5
conviction that a mistake has been made.”8 When reviewing questions of law,
the court may substitute its determination for that of the agency.9 But because
PERC’s members have considerable expertise in labor relations, the court gives
substantial weight to PERC’s interpretations of the collective bargaining
statutes.10 Where an administrative decision involves a mixed question of law
and fact, “the court does not try the facts de novo but it determines the law
independently of the agency’s decision and applies it to facts as found by the
agency.”11
In addition to Washington law, this court looks to federal decisions
construing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA),12 which are persuasive
when interpreting similar provisions in the Washington statutes.13
ANALYSIS
The Union first argues that the City should be required to comply with
Johnnie’s Poultry when interviewing bargaining unit member employees in
preparation for a pending grievance arbitration. We disagree.
Public employees in Washington State have a “right to organize and
designate representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of collective
8
Renton Educ. Ass’n, 101 Wn.2d at 440.
Pasco Police Officers’ Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 132 Wn.2d 450, 458, 938
P.2d 827(1997).
10
City of Bellevue v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Local 1604, 119 Wn.2d
373, 381, 831 P.2d 738 (1992).
11
Renton Educ. Ass’n, 101 Wn.2d at 441.
12
29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169.
13
Pasco Police Officers’ Ass’n, 132 Wn.2d at 458-59.
9
-5-
NO. 64396-7-I / 6
bargaining.”14
A public employer commits an unfair labor practice when it
interferes with, restrains, or coerces public employees in the exercise of their
rights or refuses to engage in collective bargaining.15
RCW 41.56.030(4)
defines “collective bargaining” as “the performance of the mutual obligations of
the public employer and the exclusive bargaining representative to meet at
reasonable times, to confer and negotiate in good faith, and to execute a written
agreement with respect to grievance procedures and collective negotiations on
personnel matters.”
The NLRA contains similar provisions. Section 7 guarantees employees
“the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection.”16 And section 8 outlines what constitutes an
unfair labor practice in language almost identical to our statute.17 Because of
this similarity, federal decisions will help to inform our analysis here.
Johnnie’s Poultry involved a section 8 unfair labor practices complaint,
14
RCW 41.56.040.
RCW 41.56.140(1), (4).
16
29 U.S.C.A. § 157.
17
The pertinent sections of the statute read,
It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—(1) to
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title; . . . (5) to refuse
to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees,
subject to the provisions of section 159(a) of this title.
29 U.S.C.A. § 158.
15
-6-
NO. 64396-7-I / 7
alleging that the employer interrogated, threatened, and coerced its employees
and refused to bargain collectively with the employees’ union.18 The facts are
instructive. In the fall of 1962, several Johnnie’s Poultry employees attempted to
organize the plant by signing union authorization cards and holding meetings.19
Having established a majority of employees in favor of unionizing, the union sent
a letter to Johnnie’s Poultry requesting recognition as the employees’ bargaining
representative.20 The union enclosed with its letter copies of the signed cards.21
When Johnnie’s Poultry declined to recognize the union, it initiated an unfair
labor practices proceeding.22
To prepare for its defense, the company’s
attorneys interviewed each of the employees who signed an authorization card.23
The attorneys asked the employees to identify their signatures on the cards and
to describe the circumstances under which they signed the cards.24
Some
employees were asked whether they understood the meaning of the card.25 The
interviews also revealed that employees were harassed for wearing the union’s
button and on one occasion, the company’s owner told an employee that if the
union tried to organize the plant, “[Y]ou know how to vote.”26
The NLRB found that “by interrogating employees concerning their union
18
Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. at 781.
Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. at 782.
20
Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. at 782.
21
Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. at 782.
22
Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. at 772.
23
Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. at 772.
24
Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. at 772.
25
Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. at 772.
26
Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. at 771, 774.
19
-7-
NO. 64396-7-I / 8
adherence and activities Respondent engaged in interference, restraint, and
coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.”27 The Board recognized,
however, that a limited privilege exists to allow employers to question employees
on matters involving their section 7 rights without incurring liability.28
This
privilege applies when the interrogation is necessary to prepare the employer’s
defense in an unfair labor practices proceeding.29 But, in allowing the privilege,
the Board emphasized that certain safeguards must be followed to minimize the
coercive nature of the interrogation.30
Specifically, before an interview, an
employer must (1) inform the employee of the purpose of the questioning, (2)
assure the employee that no reprisal will take place regardless of whether or not
they participate in the questioning, and (3) inform the employee that participation
in questioning is voluntary.31
The NLRB continues to require employers to provide Johnnie’s Poultry
warnings to each employee it interviews in preparation for defending an unfair
labor practices complaint.32
The inquiry changes, however, when the
questioning occurs outside of the unfair labor practices context. In situations
27
Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. at 776.
Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. at 774-75.
29
Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. at 775.
30
Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. at 775.
31
Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. at 775.
32
See, e.g., L & L Wine & Liquor Corp., 323 N.L.R.B. 848, 853 (1997);
Grandview Health Care Center, 332 N.L.R.B. 347, 349 (2000); Dayton
Typographic Serv., Inc. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 778 F.2d 1188, 1195 (6th
Cir. 1985); ITT Auto. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 188 F.3d 375, 389 (6th Cir.
1999).
28
-8-
NO. 64396-7-I / 9
where an unfair labor practices complaint has not been filed and an employer
questions an employee concerning his section 7 rights, the question is whether,
under all the circumstances, the interrogation reasonably tended to restrain,
coerce, or interfere with those rights.33 A number of federal circuits and Division
Two of this court have used the “Bourne factors”34 to evaluate the questioning’s
coercive effect.35
Two conditions must therefore be met before a court will require an
employer to administer Johnnie’s Poultry warnings. First, the questioning must
concern a protected, union-related activity.
The Union argues that the
questioning here meets this condition because “PERC and Washington courts
have consistently held that filing and processing grievances are activities
protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW from employer interference.” The protected
33
See, e.g., Rossmore House, 269 N.L.R.B. 1176, 1177 (1984);
Sunnyvale Med. Clinic, 277 N.L.R.B. 1217, 1217 (1985); see also V & S
ProGalv, Inc. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 168 F.3d 270, 280 (6th Cir. 1999);
Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. McCullough Envtl. Servs. Inc., 5 F.3d 923, 928 (5th
Cir. 1993); Hotel Emps. & Restaurant Emp. Union, Local 11 v. Nat’l Labor
Relations Bd., 760 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1985).
34
Bourne v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2nd Cir. 1964).
35
See City of Vancouver v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 107 Wn. App.
694, 706, 33 P.3d 74 (2001). These factors are
(1) the history of the employer’s attitude towards its employees;
(2) the type of information sought; (3) the company rank of the
questioner; (4) the place and manner of the conversation; (5) the
truthfulness of the employee’s responses; (6) whether the
employer had a valid purpose for obtaining the information; (7) if
so, whether the employer communicated it to the employee; and
(8) whether the employer assured the employee that no reprisals
would be forthcoming should he or she support the union.
-9-
NO. 64396-7-I / 10
right, however, is the right to pursue a grievance.36 The deputy chiefs were not
themselves pursuing a grievance, and thus were not exercising a protected right,
when they answered the City’s questions pertaining to another employee’s
grievance.
The Union further argues that “[e]mployees are protected when they
associate with or support a grievant in the grievance procedure.” The lone case
the Union cites in support of that proposition, Isaac v. City of Omak,37 is
distinguishable. Isaac did not involve employer interviews. And in Isaac the
employer threatened its employees to prevent those employees from exercising
their own grievance rights.38 This case includes no element of any threat to
union-related activity, making Isaac inapposite.
In addition, for Johnnie’s Poultry to apply, the questioning must occur in
preparation for an employer’s defense against an unfair labor practices
complaint. The Union fails to persuade us that we should extend the federal
decisions noted above to hold that Johnnie’s Poultry warnings must be given
36
See Clallam Cnty. v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 43 Wn. App. 589,
599, 719 P.2d 140 (1986) (holding that to pursue a grievance is a right protected
under RCW 41.56).
37
No. 5579-B, 1998 WL 812651 (Wash. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n
1998).
38
There, a union steward filed a grievance against the Omak Police
Department, protesting the suspension of a bargaining unit member. 1998 WL
812651, at *6. Other bargaining unit members supported the grievance. 1998
WL 812651, at *7. In retaliation, the employer sent members “ominous” e-mail
messages with frequent references to discipline. 1998 WL 812651, at *13.
PERC found that the City violated RCW 41.56.140(1) by “issuing e-mail
messages designed to ‘stomp on’ bargaining unit employees after and in
response to the exercise of grievance rights protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW.”
1998 WL 812651, at *16.
-10-
NO. 64396-7-I / 11
before interviewing employees to prepare for a disciplinary grievance
arbitration.39
Because the questioning did not concern a protected activity and did not
occur in preparation for the City’s unfair labor practices defense, we affirm the
trial court’s decision as to this issue.
Next, the Union argues that the City violated RCW 41.56.140(4) when it
refused to provide the information the Union requested after the City’s
interviews, including the identities of the employees and copies of the
employees’ statements and attorney’s notes. The City does not dispute that it
had a duty to provide the Union with certain information relating to the
grievance. Rather, the dispute concerns when and under what circumstances
that duty is owed. The City claims that it fulfilled its duty when it supplied all
relevant information to the Union before disciplining Douce, and any information
obtained between discipline and arbitration was irrelevant and unnecessary.
Because the Union failed to establish that the information was relevant, we
affirm the trial court as to the City’s duty to disclose.
Under RCW 41.56.140(4), “[i]t shall be an unfair labor practice for a
public employer . . . to refuse to engage in collective bargaining.” The duty to
bargain includes providing relevant and necessary information needed by the
39
We do not address whether PERC may require an employer to comply
with Johnnie’s Poultry when questioning a bargaining unit member regarding
activities protected under chapter 41.56 RCW in preparation for an unfair labor
practices proceeding.
-11-
NO. 64396-7-I / 12
union for the proper performance of its duties in the collective bargaining
process40 and extends to requests for information required for the processing of
grievances.41 “The duty of the employer to furnish information relevant to the
processing of a grievance does not terminate when the grievance is taken to
arbitration.”42 The requesting party, however, “must demonstrate more than an
abstract, potential relevance of the requested information, and must show that
the information is actually relevant.”43 While the duty turns on the facts of a
particular case, a union’s bare assertion that it needs the information “does not
automatically oblige the employer to supply all the information.”44 But a party
that receives a request for information must respond and must timely explain any
objection to the request.45
Here, the Union provides no more than a bare assertion that the
information it requested was relevant. The Union asserts that “[i]n this case
there is no dispute about the relevance of the information the Union requested
concerning interviews by the City’s attorney.”
40
This argument would be
City of Bellevue, 119 Wn.2d at 383; Cook Paint & Varnish Co. v. Nat’l
Labor Relations Bd., 648 F.2d 712, 716 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
41
Teamsters Union, Local 174 v. King Cnty., No. 6772-A, 1999 WL
1338342, at *4 (Wash. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n Dec. 14, 1999); San Diego
Newspaper Guild, Local 95 v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 548 F.2d 863, 866-67
(9th Cir. 1977).
42
Cook, 648 F.2d at 716.
43
Local 174, 1999 WL 1338342, at *4.
44
Local 174, 1999 WL 1338342, at *4.
45
Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 9 v. Port of Seattle, No.
7000-A, 2000 WL 1858211, at *5 (Wash. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n Nov. 14,
2000).
-12-
NO. 64396-7-I / 13
insufficient to establish relevance even if it were not directly contradicted by the
City’s contention that the information is irrelevant. The Union further claims that
“[i]nformation pertaining to employees in the bargaining unit is presumptively
relevant.” While information such as wages, hours, and terms and conditions of
employment is presumptively relevant,46 that is not the type of information the
Union requested here. The Union fails to meet its burden to show that the
information it sought was relevant.
Finally, the Union contends that the City violated its duty to explain why it
denied the Union’s request for information. Neither party disputes the duty, but
the City contends that it fulfilled its obligation with two letters to the Union, one
dated May 17, 2005, and another sent two days after the Union filed its unfair
labor practices complaint. PERC found these letters insufficient.
Substantial
evidence supports this finding.
First, the City’s May 17 letter simply stated that it “will not disclose to you
or your client any of the information gathered.” And while a copy of a 2004 letter
enclosed with the May 17 letter responded to the Johnnie’s Poultry issue, it did
not provide a reason for refusing to turn over the requested information.
Second, the letter sent by the City after the Union filed its unfair labor practices
proceeding came too late to fulfill its obligation. The purpose of the duty is to
46
Bremerton Patrolmen’s Ass’n v. City of Bremerton, No. 6006-A, 1998
WL 86012, at *4 (Wash. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n Jan. 1998); Nw. Publ’ns,
Inc., 211 N.L.R.B. 464, 465 (1974).
-13-
NO. 64396-7-I / 14
avoid unnecessary litigation.
Quoting its decision in Int’l Longshore &
Warehouse Union, Local 9 v. Port of Seattle,47 PERC explained,
“The Commission expects that parties will negotiate solutions to
any difficulties they encounter in connection with information
requests. This is consistent with viewing the duty to provide
information as part of an ongoing and continuous obligation to
bargain. Although an employer may initially reply to an information
request by claiming that compliance is difficult or not warranted, it
must also explain its concerns to the union and make a good faith
effort to reach a resolution that will satisfy its concerns and yet
provide maximum information to the union.”
Here, PERC further elaborated, “[T]he employer’s refusal coupled with its lack of
explanation for its denial left the union with few options aside from filing a
complaint.”
47
No. 7000-A, 2000 WL 1858211, at *5 (Wash. Pub. Emp’t Relations
Comm’n Nov. 14, 2000).
-14-
NO. 64396-7-I / 15
CONCLUSION
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
WE CONCUR:
-15-
Warning Concerning Copyright Restrictions
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the
reproduction of copyrighted material.
Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are permitted
to furnish a reproduction if used for “private study, scholarship or research.” A
second condition is that only single articles or chapters of a work totaling no more
than 15% of the total number of pages be reproduced. Any use of a reproduction
that exceeds these guidelines may be considered copyright infringement.
This institution reserves the right to refuse any request for reproduction that is
deemed a violation of current copyright guidelines.
This material has been reproduced from the following source:
Torchia, Michael J. and John A. DiNome. Workplace Investigations of Sexual
Harassment Claims. Pub. No. 2008-4990. Feb. 2008. Ch. 3. pp. 41-60.
Date prepared: 04/22/2010
This material is presented for use solely by authorized faculty and students of the
Pennsylvania State University. Further reproduction or distribution of this material
is expressly prohibited.
This material may be made available in alternative media upon request. Please
contact Course Reserves Services at ereserves@psulias.psu.edu or by phone at
(814) 863-0324.
If you are experiencing problems viewing or printing this document, please visit
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/reserve/useelectronicreserves.htm for
troubleshooting information. If further assistance is required, please send a
description of the problem to ereserves@psulias.psu.edu that includes the
course and instructor for which the material is on reserve, as well as the title of
the material.