Case Brief #4 (W) - Grade: A PDF

Preview

Summary

Harris v. Forklift Systems ...

Description

Harris v. Forklift Systems

On November 9th, the Supreme Court ruled a nine to zero vote in the case of workplaceharassment. The case involves Teresa Harris, petitioner, versus Forklift Systems inc. The case was opened on October 13, 1993 and it was decided on November 9, 1993. A former employer of Forklift Systems filed a Title VII action lawsuit under the pretense of an abusive work environment. Her appeal was towards the alleged harassment on the basis of gender. Under the Title VII action, persons of employment are protected based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. In regards to this case, the district court found that even though Hardy’s behavior was offensive, it wasn’t enough to create an abusive work environment. The violation was in reference to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Evidence in relation to this case include insults made in reference to gender which made the petitioner, Harris, a target of sexual innuendos. In this case, the issue of whether the work environment was really hostile, was brought down to whether or not it comprised her psychological well being. If the harassment or conduct does not meet the criteria of “seriously affecting an employees psychological well-being,” or lead the employee to suffer an injury therefore of, then the conduct at hand does not prove to sufficiently sustain the harassment charges under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Throughout her time at Forklift, Harris was the target of insults based on her gender which made her a target for sexual innuendos. This was the case being decided under the Supreme Court in the Teresa Harris virus Forklift Systems Inc. Case. The issue at hand was not whether or not the harassment was imminent, it was whether or not the environment of work proved to be damaging to the plaintiff. Evidence included quotes of

the following: directed toward Harris; “You're a woman, what do you know” and “We need a man as the rental manager”; at least once, he told her she was “a dumb ass woman.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A–13 This evidence in reference to the offense that Harris took, did not sustain under pretense from the defendant that he was “only joking.” The abusive work environment that was presented therefore did not “seriously affect Harris’ psychological well-being. His overall work conduct did not generally affect her work performance. The District Court did not find Hardy’s behavior offensive and it ruled against Harris. Later on October 13, 1993, the case was argued before the Supreme Court and the former ruling in reference to whether or not the harassment caused psychological harm, was dismissed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. The court later set in motion the act of offensive conduct resulting in a “psychological injury.” O’conner J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. When proving whether a plaintiff may establish a violation, there must be proof of a hostile environment. The plaintiff need to not prove whether his or her tangible productivity has declined as a result of harassment. There was a unanimous decision for Harris as “abusive work environment.” In this case I would agree with the unanimous decision. The fact that the “abusive” and “hostile” work environment was delegated in the conditions of the “psychological harm.” This is an open book case, in the sense that the “tangible,” evidence of psychological damage was sufficient enough to unanimously decide against the defendant. With the evidence provided in the law suit I believe it was adequately decided....