How can the legal concepts in a sexual harassment case be applied witihin a business managerial setting?

 Issue:

The issue in the case of the Bonners Ferry police officer and the alleged tort is whether or not a hostile work environment resulted in sexual harassment in the city police department. The court, in this situation, must determine if the alleged actions presented in the case are enough evidence to result in the claim of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a serious crime and could affect all of the parties in this case, including their jobs. In this case, School Resource Officer Tiffany Murray feels that here rights were violated and wants to seek and recover damages for those actions. The issue presented in the Bonners Ferry police officer case can be applied in a business managerial setting because all companies, as well as managers and employees, must abide by the rules set forth, not only by the company, but also by State and Federal laws not to participate in acts of sexual harassment.

Rule(s):

State Statutes/Rulings

1. Defamation:

Defamation Per Se or Defamation in Iowa is any statement or publication that is in and of itself defamatory with the intent of ruining the plaintiff’s reputation, social standing, or fiscal well-being. Since the statements are in and of themselves defamatory, the plaintiff (Officer Murray) does not have to prove damages, only that the statements were made to a third party.

1. Harassment:

This is behavior which has the effect of humiliating, intimidating, or coercing someone through personal attack. It is behavior that will make someone uncomfortable or embarrassed, and cause emotional distress. The alleged actions of the Police officers and Deputy Chief, if proven true, would fall into the category of harassment. For the Deputy to allegedly overtly ignore these is negligent, nonfeasance, or even malfeasance when one takes into consideration the Quid Pro Quo assertion of the plaintiff.

1. Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment:

This form of harassment is often prohibited as a matter of criminal law (the crime in some cases is labeled "abuse of power"), as a form of sex discrimination or as a violation of labor or tort law.  In the case it is alleged that Deputy Chief Minor’s actions constitute this type of Harassment. The employer can be found guilty of Quid pro quo harassment if it occurs.  In this case the alleged offer for protection in exchange for sexual favors would constitute Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment

Federal Statutes/Rulings

1. Hostile Work Environment Harassment:

According to Federal Law, a hostile environment can result from the unwelcome conduct of supervisors, co-workers, customers, contractors, or anyone else with whom the victim interacts on the job, and the unwelcome conduct renders the workplace atmosphere intimidating, hostile, or offensive. In this case the alleged offenses, if true, of the officers and the Deputy would fall into that of promoting a hostile work environment.

1. Responsible Parties

Under federal law, an employer is legally responsible to a victimized employee for sexual harassment by a supervisor with authority over that employee in certain instances.

When the harassment leads to a tangible employment action, such as demotion, decreased compensation, significantly different work assignments, or termination, the employer's liability is absolute; and when there has been no tangible employment action, the employer is liable.

Analysis:

Deputy Chief Joel Minor had a duty to his employee Officer Murray and the City to investigate the allegations made by Murray regarding the behavior of SGT Lunde.  Deputy Chief Minor acted unprofessional and uninterested in these allegations.  Allegedly Deputy Chief Minor responded to the assertions with Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment overt actions.  Officer Murray contends that Minor offered protection from Lund in exchange for sexual favors of a prurient nature that were unwanted, offensive and lewd.   Quid Pro Quo is defined from the Cornell law online library as "an exchange of acts or things of approximately equal value."  As in most allegations this was an offered exchange of sexual favors for protection from sexual harassment, in itself a form of sexual harassment.

Conclusion:

If all allegations are correct then one can assume the case will……