Case s ummary : Person B was an employee of K which is a department of community-based services (DCBS). An another employee L was engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior. B and other workers filed a complaint against L to their supervisor A. But A did not take any action against L and instead encouraged B to talk to L. To find: Liability of DCBS to create hostile work environment for person B.

Question

Carole Smith, an Apostolic Christian, worked as sales associate at Nickels Department Store. One afternoon, during a break, Smith participated in a conversation about God, homosexuality, and same-sex marriages. The next day, an employee told the manager that Smith made inappropriate comments about gays to Casey, a Nickels employee who was gay. Over the next five weeks, Nickels investigated the incident by interviewing and obtaining statements from employees who were present during the conversation. In his statement, Casey reported that Smith pointed her finger and said that God does not accept gays, that gays should not be allowed to marry or have children, and that they will burn in hell. Three employees confirmed Smith’s statements. Nickels terminated Smith's employment after concluding she had engaged in serious harassment in violation of its Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy. This policy, of which Smith was aware, prohibits employees from engaging in conduct that…

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 21, Problem 4BCP

Summary Introduction

Case s ummary : Person B was an employee of K which is a department of community-based services (DCBS). An another employee L was engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior. B and other workers filed a complaint against L to their supervisor A. But A did not take any action against L and instead encouraged B to talk to L.

To find: Liability of DCBS to create hostile work environment for person B.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Carole Smith, an Apostolic Christian, worked as sales associate at Nickels Department Store. One afternoon, during a break, Smith participated in a conversation about God, homosexuality, and same-sex marriages. The next day, an employee told the manager that Smith made inappropriate comments about gays to Casey, a Nickels employee who was gay. Over the next five weeks, Nickels investigated the incident by interviewing and obtaining statements from employees who were present during the conversation. In his statement, Casey reported that Smith pointed her finger and said that God does not accept gays, that gays should not be allowed to marry or have children, and that they will burn in hell. Three employees confirmed Smith’s statements. Nickels terminated Smith's employment after concluding she had engaged in serious harassment in violation of its Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy. This policy, of which Smith was aware, prohibits employees from engaging in conduct that…

Katie (not her real name) was a manager in a food manufacturing factory. She had a number of health and safety practice concerns around COVID-19. While Katie’s employer had some safety measures in place, she was concerned that the factory had not been effectively cleaned and decontaminated, and several employees had tested positive for COVID-19 and were off work. No senior personnel were on-site for Katie to raise her concerns with. As a result of her concerns and the stress they placed upon her, Katie left work and seek your advice. She wanted to report about lack of responsibility on the part of her previous employer that may cause the spread of Covid-19 at the factory. Advise Katie according to whistleblowing policy.

Mohamed Arafi, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Morocco, works as a valet dry cleaner for the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington, D.C. In December 2010, a supervisor allegedly prohibited Arab or Muslim workers from going on floors occupied by a delegation of Israeli diplomats. The supervisor allegedly told Arafi, “You know how the Israelis are with Arabs and Muslims.” Arafi says he complied with his supervisor’s instructions but consequently lost out on tips. He subsequently complained to another supervisor and the hotel’s director of human resources. Arafi says his work hours were cut, and that his colleagues said demeaning things about Muslims to him after the incident became known to them. Arafi brought suit under Title VII, alleging disparate treatment resulting in an adverse employment action (the loss of tips), as well as retaliation. The Mandarin Hotel claimed a national security exemption. Would either of Arafi’s claims be successful? Would the Hotel’s? [Arafi v. Mandarin…