CRJ550 Saint Leo Week 4 Pennsylvania State Police v Suders Case Analysis Case Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004) Active Learning Di

CRJ550 Saint Leo Week 4 Pennsylvania State Police v Suders Case Analysis Case

Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004)

Active Learning Discussion

Read the assigned case. Before you read the court’s decision determine how you would find if you were the judge. Write a discussion post based on your decision. After your post, go back in the case. Were you correct? Did the court find the way you thought they would find? Did they do so for the same reasons? Post a reflective post on your analysis of the case versus the court’s analysis.

You must read at least three other students’ reviews and comment. Your replies must be no less than 100 words each.

2. Case Brief Guidelines:

Students will brief all assigned cases for the module in which they are assigned. The case briefs are to be the student’s own work. The learning process takes place with the student reading, analyzing, and summarizing the facts and issues in a case; copying someone else’s work is not part of the learning process. However, students may consult with each other, discuss cases, and use the product of those discussions to write their briefs.
Your classmates will depend on you to write a thorough, accurate brief of the case(s) assigned. You, in turn, will rely on your classmates to do the same for their cases.
A copy of your brief will be posted in this module’s Case Brief Discussion board.
Be prepared to explain, justify, or dissent from your assigned case, as the instructor and/or classmates may query you about the case.

3. Case Brief Discussion

In the Case Briefs Discussion area, give your constructive feedback on the submissions that have been posted by your classmates. Your remarks can be opinion, but must be based on your experience, research, and/or prior learning. Use this area to gain valuable insight on how your fellow colleagues approached the Case Briefs and how your professor gave feedback and suggestions. Apply this information going forward to strengthen your own work. Apply this information going forward to enrich your understanding of the material, improve your ability to apply that knowledge to new content, and to strengthen your own work.

You must read at least three other students’ reviews and comment no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT. Your replies must be no less than 100 words each. Case
Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004)
1. Active Learning Discussion
Read the assigned case. Before you read the court’s decision determine how you would find if you were
the judge. Write a discussion post based on your decision. After your post, go back in the case. Were you
correct? Did the court find the way you thought they would find? Did they do so for the same reasons?
Post a reflective post on your analysis of the case versus the court’s analysis.
You must read at least three other students’ reviews and comment. Your replies must be no less than
100 words each.
POST 1
Crystal Stubbs posted May 21, 2019 9:21 PM
Subscribe
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 998 (1998)
In late October 1991, Oncale was working for respondent Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.
on a Chevron U.S. A., Inc., oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. He was employed as a
roustabout on an eight-man crew which included respondents John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and
Brandon Johnson. Lyons, the crane operator, and Pippen, the driller, had supervisory
authority. Oncale on different occasions was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating
actions against him by Lyons, Pippen, and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew.
Pippen and Lyons also physically assaulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened
him with rape. Onscale complained to his supervisor, but he did nothing about it. The
Company’s Safety Compliance Clerk, Valent Hohen mentioned that, “They had also picked
on him and called him named suggested homosexuality”. Oncale having a hard time at work
eventually quit his job. Oncale wanted his pink slip to say, “he voluntarily left due to sexual
harassment and verbal abuse. When he was asked, “why did you leave your job”. Oncale
stated, “I felt that if I didn’t leave my job, that I would be raped or forced to have sex”.
Oncale filed a complaint against Sundower in the United States District Court for the eastern
District of Louisiana, alleging that he was discriminated against in his employment because of
his sex. If I was the judge in this case I would rule in favor with Mr. Oncale. He was
experiencing harsh treated and he followed proper protocol to report his experiences. His
supervisor did nothing about it. What made the situation worse is that the company’s Safety
Compliance Clerk, admitted that he experience the same treatment. The Supervisor did
nothing to help Oncale. I would also say that Oncale should have also reported it to the police.
References
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 998 (1998), 118 (The United States
Supreme Court March 4, 1998).
POST 2
Tisha Arther posted May 22, 2019 10:16 AM
Subscribe
Meritor Bank v. Vinson, 106 S. Ct. 2399 (1986)
In 1974, the respondent Mechelle Vinson met Sidney Taylor, a vice-president, the
petitioner Meritor Savings Bank and manager of one of its branch offices. The
respondent was hired by the petitioner after completing an application to work at
the bank. It appears as though the respondent’s advancements were ascertained
based on merit as she worked at the same branch for four years.
In September of 1978, respondent notified Taylor that she was taking sick leave for
an indefinite period. On November 1, 1978, the bank discharged her for excessive
use of that leave. I think this seems pretty insensitive of the petitioner to take such
swift action, considering we do not know why the respondent was taking all of this
sick leave.
Respondent acted against Taylor and the bank stating that she had allegedly been
constantly subjected to sexual harassment by Taylor in violation of Title VII:
This law makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race,
color, religion, national origin, or sex. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate
against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a
charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination
investigation or lawsuit.
The respondent sought injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages
against Taylor and the bank, and attorney’s fees.
The respondent and petitioner both presented conflicting testimony about Taylor’s
behavior during respondent’s employment. Respondent testified that, during her
probationary period as a teller-trainee, Taylor treated her in a fatherly way and
made no sexual advances; however, shortly thereafter, he invited her out to
dinner and, during the course of the meal, suggested that they go to a motel to
have sexual relations. At first, she refused, but out of what she described as fear of
losing her job, she eventually agreed.
The petitioner contended instead that the respondent made her accusations in
response to a business-related dispute. The bank also denied respondent’s
allegations and asserted that any sexual harassment by Taylor was unknown to the
bank and engaged in without its consent or approval.
My thoughts about what occurred thus far in the case that is that because the
respondent agreed to the sexual favors and did not clearly inform the petitioner
that they were subject to sexual harassment, I see no case. If at any violation,
maybe the petitioner violated a fraternization policy. I don’t think it is the norm for
managers to date or have sexual encounters with employees. I would need to
verify if any such policies exist within the company. I could even see the bank
being liable for fraternization upon notification it were occurring.
After going back to further analyze the case, I was correct in assuming that the
respondent had not proved a violation of Title VII. I did not comment about the
bank’s liability of what allegedly occurred. I do not agree that the bank is liable for
something that they did not know occurred. I believe that the respondent should
have informed the bank of what was happening instead of taking the excessive sick
leave. The bank cannot act upon something they have no clue is happening.
However, the court went on to address the bank’s liability, after noting the bank’s
express policy against discrimination. The prohibition against discrimination based
on sex was added to Title VII in 1964. The Court of Appeals decided that an
employer is strictly liable for a hostile environment created by a supervisor’s
sexual advances, even though the employer neither knew nor reasonably could
have known of the alleged misconduct.
References
Laws Enforced by EEOC. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Retrieved
from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/index.cfm
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), Retrieved
from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/477/57/
POST 3
Joanne Abel posted May 22, 2019 12:35 PM
Subscribe
Sexual Harassment
Burlington Northern Railway v. White, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006)
After reading the case of Burlington Northern Railway, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006), I believe that
Supreme Court got it right. The United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee entered judgment on jury verdict for employee on retaliation claim and against
employee on sex discrimination and punitive damages claims, and denied railroad’s motion
for judgment as a matter of law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
reversed in part and remanded. On rehearing en banc, the Court of Appeals, affirmed denial of
judgment as a matter of law, but remanded as to punitive damages. The United States
Supreme Court, held that: (1) application of Title VII retaliation provision is not limited to
employer’s employment-related or workplace actions; (2) retaliation provision contains
materiality requirement and objective standard; (3) whether reassignment of duties constituted
materially adverse action was jury questions; and (4) whether 37-day suspension constituted
materially adverse action also was jury question (Burlington, 2006)
This case arises out of actions that supervisors at petitioner Burlington Northern & Santa Fe
Railway Company took against respondent Sheila White, the only woman working in the
Maintenance of Way department at Burlington’s Tennessee Yard. In June 1997, Burlington’s
roadmaster, Marvin Brown, interviewed White and expressed interest in her previous
experience operating forklifts. Burlington hired White as a “track laborer,” a job that involves
removing and replacing track components, transporting track material, cutting brush, and
clearing litter and cargo spillage from the right-of-way. Soon after White arrived on the job, a
co-worker who had previously operated the forklift chose to assume other responsibilities.
Brown immediately assigned White to operate the forklift. While she also performed some of
the other track labor tasks, operating the forklift was White’s primary responsibility
(Burlington, 2006).
In September 1997, White complained to Burlington officials that her immediate supervisor,
Bill Joiner, had repeatedly told her that women should not be working in the Maintenance of
Way department. Joiner, White said, had also made insulting and inappropriate remarks to her
in front of her male colleagues. After an internal investigation, Burlington suspended Joiner
for 10 days and ordered him to attend a sexual-harassment training session (Burlington,
2006).
On September 26, Brown told White about Joiner’s discipline. At the same time, he told
White that he was removing her from forklift duty and assigning her to perform only standard
track laborer tasks. Brown explained that the reassignment reflected co-worker’s complaints
that, in fairness, a “more senior man” should have the “less arduous and cleaner job” of
forklift operator (Burlington, 2006).
On October 10, White filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission). She claimed that the reassignment of her duties amounted to
unlawful gender-based discrimination and retaliation for her having earlier complained about
Joiner. In early December, White filed a second retaliation charge with the Commission,
claiming that Brown had placed her under surveillance and was monitoring her daily
activities. That charge was mailed to Brown on December 8 (Burlington, 2006).
A few days later, White and her immediate supervisor, Percy Sharkey, disagreed about which
truck should transport White from one location to another. The specific facts of the
disagreement are in dispute, but the upshot is that Sharkey told Brown later that afternoon that
White had been insubordinate. Brown immediately suspended White without pay. White
invoked internal grievance procedures. Those procedures led Burlington to conclude that
White had not been insubordinate. Burlington reinstated White to her position and awarded
her backpay for the 37 days she was suspended. White filed an additional retaliation charge
with the EEOC based on the suspension (Burlington, 2006).
I believe that Sheila White had every right to file her claims since in fact, it seemed, that she
was only being treated this way because she was the only woman working in that department.
According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a claim for sexual harassment requires
the employee to show under all circumstances: (1) that the workplace was permeated with
discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult; (2) that the employee subjectively perceived
that the workplace was abusive; (3) that the abuse interfered with the employee’s work
performance or altered the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; and (4) that the
discriminatory abuse was based upon the employee’s gender (Avery, 2014).
References:
Avery, I. T. (2014). Legal issues in criminal justice administration (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing
Burlington Northern Railway v. White, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006)
Case
Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004)
2. Case Brief Guidelines:
•
•
•
•
Students will brief all assigned cases for the module in which they are assigned. The case briefs
are to be the student’s own work. The learning process takes place with the student reading,
analyzing, and summarizing the facts and issues in a case; copying someone else’s work is not
part of the learning process. However, students may consult with each other, discuss cases, and
use the product of those discussions to write their briefs.
Your classmates will depend on you to write a thorough, accurate brief of the case(s) assigned.
You, in turn, will rely on your classmates to do the same for their cases.
A copy of your brief will be posted in this module’s Case Brief Discussion board.
Be prepared to explain, justify, or dissent from your assigned case, as the instructor and/or
classmates may query you about the case.
3. Case Brief Discussion
In the Case Briefs Discussion area, give your constructive feedback on the submissions that have been
posted by your classmates. Your remarks can be opinion, but must be based on your experience,
research, and/or prior learning. Use this area to gain valuable insight on how your fellow colleagues
approached the Case Briefs and how your professor gave feedback and suggestions. Apply this
information going forward to strengthen your own work. Apply this information going forward to enrich
your understanding of the material, improve your ability to apply that knowledge to new content, and to
strengthen your own work.
You must read at least three other students’ reviews and comment no later than Sunday 11:59 PM
EST/EDT. Your replies must be no less than 100 words each.
100 word response to the following 3 posts
POST 1
Theresa Lehman posted May 23, 2019 1:40 PM
Subscribe
Assignment sub-heading: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Sexual Harassment
TITLE AND CITATION:
Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004)
TYPE OF ACTION:
Review by United States Supreme Court to determine the liability of the Pennsylvania
State Police Agency as an employer of the supervisors accused of sexual harassment.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In March of 1998, the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) hired Nancy Drew Suders as a
police communications operator. From the beginning, Suders’ three male supervisors
subjected her to continuous sexual harassment. The sexual harassment varied from
vulgar body motions to talk about sex with animal and teaching young girls to please
men through oral sex. One supervisor event went as far as slamming his fist down
against her desk to intimidate her. She reached out to the PSP’s Equal Employment
Opportunity Officer in June of 1998 and claimed she may need help. Neither Suders nor
the EEO officer followed up with this conversation. Suders had taken several tests to
satisfy the PSP job requirements and the thee supervisors continued to tell her that she
had failed the test each time. In August of 1998, Suders attempted to reach the EEO
officer again and stated that she was being harassed and was afraid. The officer
instructed Suders to file a complaint but did not tell her how to do so. Suders felt that
this officer was insensitive and unhelpful. Two days after this, Suders’ supervisors
arrested her for theft because Suders found her ungraded tests and taken them as her
property then tried to return them. Prior to her arrest Suders had prepared a letter to
resign and upon her arrest she informed the supervisors of her resignation. They
released her, and no charges were filed against her. In September of 2000, Suders sued
the PSP in Federal District Court alleging inter alia, being subjected to sexual harassment
and constructively discharged, violating the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
Suders: Suders contends that the Pennsylvania State Police Agency is liable for the
hostile work environment that caused her constructive discharge by allowing the three
supervisors to sexually harass her.
Pennsylvania State Policy: The PSP contend they are not liable for the actions of these
three supervisors which led to Suders’ constructive discharge because they were not
properly notified and given time to take action in order to correct the behavior.
ISSUE:
Is the PSP as an employer liable for the actions of its supervisors?
DECISION:
No, because they PSP were not properly notified and given a chance to make the
necessary corrective measures to insure the safety of Suders.
REASONING:
The United States Supreme Court held that Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense was
available in this case. The employer is not liable for the actions of its supervisors in cases
of harassment where the position of the supervisor was not used as a part of the
harassment.
RULE OF LAW:
In Ellerth/Faragher an employer is liable for the acts of its agent(s) when the agent(s)
are aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation. The actions of
the supervisors in this case were not aided by the existence of the agency relation. This
rule of law is called Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense.
POST 2
Karri Greene posted May 23, 2019 2:39 PM
Subscribe
Case Brief #4
Assignment sub-heading: Sexual Harassment
TITLE AND CITATION: Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 998 (1998)
TYPE OF ACTION: Joseph Oncale brought Title VII action against his former employer,
male supervisors, and co-workers, alleging sexual harassment. The United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted summary judgment for defendants,
and plaintiff appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirm ed.
Certiorari was granted, and the case was taken to The Supreme Court of the United
States.
FACTS OF THE CASE: In late October 1991, Joseph Oncale was working for respondent
Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., on a Chevron U.S. A., Inc., oil platform in the Gulf of
Mexico. He was employed as a roustabout on an eight-man crew which included
respondents John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and Brandon Johnson. Lyons, the crane
operator, and Pippen, the driller, had supervisory authority. On several occasions,
Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons,
Pippen, and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also
physically sexually assaulted Oncale, and Lyons threatened him with rape.
Oncale’s complaints to supervisory personnel produced no remedial action; the
company’s Safety Compliance Clerk, Valent Hohen, told Oncale that Lyons and Pippen
“picked [on] him all the time too,” and called him a name suggesting homosexuality.
Oncale eventually quit—asking that his pink slip reflect that he “voluntarily left due to
sexual harassment and verbal abuse.” When asked at his deposition why he left
Sundowner, Oncale stated: “I felt that if I did not leave my job, that I would be raped or
forced to have sex.”
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
ONCALE: Plaintiff, Oncale filed a complaint against Sundowner in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging that he was discriminated
against in his employment because of his sex.
CITY OF CHICAGO: Defendant contends, held that “Mr. Oncale, a male, has no cause of
action under Title VII for harassment by male co-workers.”
ISSUE: Is sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment actionable under
Title VII?
DECISION: Because the Supreme Court of the United States concludes that sex
discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII,
the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REASONING: Sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable
under Title VII. Recognizing liability for same-sex harassment will not transform Title
VII into a general civility code for the American workplace, since Title VII is directed at
discrimination because of sex, not merely conduct tinged w…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment