Session 4 Case Analysis- BUS- LAW
odt
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Phoenix *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
305A
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
odt
Pages
6
Uploaded by LuisS86
Case Analysis
Jasmina Sprayberry
Colorado Christian University
LAW- 305A- Foundations of Business Law
Professor Kenneth Heer
December 17
th
, 2023
Sexual Harassment
Gleason v. Mesirow Financial, Inc., 118 F.3d 1134 (7th Cir. 1997)
Lori M. Gleason, the plaintiff in this case, was terminated from her role as a phone clerk at
Mesirow Financials Incorporated, specifically from the Correspondent Trading Desk, a position
involving the accurate processing of orders for brokers or dealers. Her supervisor, Greg Novak,
faced complaints about inappropriate behavior, conduct, and a difficult personality. Gleason
alleged that Novak made discriminatory comments about her pregnancy and subjected her to
inappropriate sexual remarks. The defendant claimed Gleason was terminated for a costly
mistake on an order, which she allegedly did not report, resulting in a $29,000.00 loss for the
company. Gleason filed a discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but
the court sided with the defendant, citing that Gleason never formally complained about sexual
harassment to the company. The court concluded that Novak's comments were not
discriminatory towards pregnant women, and Gleason was terminated due to multiple errors in
her position that incurred financial losses for the company. The case was not deemed a sexual
harassment case as the court found no substantial evidence of actions creating a hostile work
environment.
Brill v. Lante, 119 F.3d 1266 (7th Cir. 1997)
Carol Brill, the plaintiff in this case, held an entry-level consultant position at Lante
Corporation and was terminated while working on an internal project, prompting her to request
removal and actively seek employment elsewhere. Brill filed a sexual harassment lawsuit
against the company, asserting that her lack of promotion and termination were discriminatory
actions based on her gender. Her claims were tied to four incidents: a July 1992 photo shoot
where offensive comments were allegedly made by Mike Gire; a dinner where the company's
president made an offensive comment about a woman near Gire; the company's Director
discovering Brill's pregnancy in November 1992 and making comments about her beliefs; and a
summer 1993 incident where a manager reportedly yelled at Brill for a client-related comment.
However, Brill provided no evidence for these allegations. The defendant argued that Brill was
terminated due to her repeated behavioral issues with clients and a lack of skills. The court ruled
in favor of the defendant, determining that the plaintiff's claims were unsubstantiated. The case
was not categorized as a sexual harassment case as the court concluded that the comments made
by the company's employees were not offensive or sexually harassing.
Guidry v. Zale Corp., 969 F. Supp. 988 (M.D. La. 1997)
Marla Herbert Guidry, a former associate of Zale Corporation, filed a lawsuit against the company,
alleging sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She contended that the
working environment at Zale Corporation was aggressive, specifically accusing a co-employee named
Jack Green of attempting to kiss her and forcefully hugging her. The defendant promptly addressed
Guidry's claims upon notification but argued that the actions were not severe enough to constitute a
hostile environment. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, acknowledging the company's
appropriate response to Guidry's complaints. The case was not classified as a sexual harassment case,
as Guidry's primary focus was on the disciplinary actions taken by the company. The incident,
according to the court, did not reach a level of seriousness that would qualify as promoting a hostile
working environment.
Penry v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 970 F. Supp. 833 (D. Kan. 1997)
Michelle Penry, the plaintiff in this case, brought a lawsuit against the Federal Home Loan Bank of
Topeka, claiming a violation of her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Penry
asserted that her supervisor had created a hostile working environment, causing her emotional distress.
Allegations included the supervisor repeatedly inviting her to dinners on business trips, and when she
declined, he refused to assist with lifting heavy items. The court, however, ruled in favor of the
defendant, stating that the actions were not extreme and did not exhibit gender bias. The case lacked
substantial "quid pro quo" evidence, defined as situations where an employee is compelled to endure
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
sexual advances to maintain employment, secure a promotion, or receive a raise. Consequently, the
court did not classify this as a sexual harassment case due to insufficient evidence supporting the
plaintiff's claims.
Hiring Discrimination
Frederick Fesel, the plaintiff in this case, was denied employment by Masonic Homes, and he
alleges that the denial was based on his gender in relation to the nurse aide position. The
defendant contends that they refused him the position under the Bona Fide Occupational
Qualifications (BFOQ) rule. This rule allows employers to make hiring decisions based on
characteristics such as race, sex, age, and national origin if these qualities are deemed essential
for the job. It serves as an exception and complete defense to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on various factors. In this instance, the
defendant argues that hiring a specific type of employee is necessary for the well-being and
comfort of the residents, as some female residents may feel uncomfortable with a male nurse
providing intimate personal care. Given the small size of the company, the defendant claims it
cannot guarantee the presence of both male and female employees in every shift to meet the
residents' needs. The defendant asserts that they would prevail in this case by demonstrating
that their actions align with BFOQ, ensuring the success of employment based on the unique
requirements of the job.
Conclusion
Guidelines for Business Leaders: Preventing Discrimination
Education and Awareness:
Do: Conduct regular seminars on workplace discrimination.
Why: Ensures employees are informed about their rights and responsibilities.
Prompt Complaint Response:
Do: Address employee complaints promptly.
Why: Demonstrates commitment to creating a safe work environment.
Affirmative Action Programs:
Do: Voluntarily institute programs promoting diversity.
Why: Encourages hiring of protected class members for a more inclusive workforce.
Documentation and Reporting:
Do: Encourage timely documentation and reporting of discrimination instances.
Why: Facilitates effective investigation and resolution of complaints.
BFOQ Understanding:
Do: Understand and apply BFOQ where relevant.
Why: Legal grounds for decisions based on job requirements.
Non-Retaliation Policies:
Do: Implement non-retaliation policies.
Why: Ensures employees feel secure reporting discrimination.
Objective Performance Evaluation:
Do: Evaluate performance objectively.
Why: Prevents discrimination based on protected characteristics.
Zero Tolerance for Hostile Environment:
Do: Foster a zero-tolerance policy for a hostile environment.
Why: Creates a culture of respect, minimizing legal risks.
Quid Pro Quo Prevention:
Do: Implement measures to prevent quid pro quo situations.
Why: Mitigates legal risks associated with unwanted advances.
Evidence-Based Decisions:
Do: Base employment decisions on substantial evidence.
Why: Demonstrates fairness and builds a strong defense against discrimination claims.
Implementing these concise guidelines promotes legal compliance and cultivates a workplace
culture that values equality and diversity.
Resources
Jennings, M. (2016). Foundations of the legal environment (3rd ed.).
Nexis Uni. (2021). Retrieved from
Nexis Uni® Home (ccu.edu)
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help