Newcrop's_Liabilities

Running head: NEWCORP’S LIABILATIES Newcorp’s Liabilities ------------------ University of Phoenix Newcorp’s Liabilities Executive Summary Newcorp employed Sam as a supervisor for the Under-Dash Wiring Harness Department. Sam and a subordinate, Paula, began a relationship which quickly developed into an all out affair. There were reports that frequent rendezvous were not uncommon between the two during working hours. Paula later began dating another man outside of Newcorp and broke off the relationship with Sam. Sam then began showing signs of harassment towards Paula in the form of touching and other inappropriate behaviors. It must be recognized that Sam has become a liability for Newcorp. Swift and sensitive action must be taken in order to contain and remedy the situation. Newcorp must first investigate the matter by holding separate interviews with Sam and Paula. If necessary, interviews will also be held with Newcorp employees who worked alongside both Sam and Paula during the time in question. After the interviews have been conducted, we can better establish any possible legal ramifications that may arise from the situation. It can be argued that Sam had created a hostile work environment for Paula therefore, infringing upon her Title VII rights under sexual harassment. There is strong evidence of both Quid Pro Quo and gender discrimination present in this case. Sam is within the scope of employment with Newcorp therefore, Newcorp is vulnerable to vicarious liability and can be held responsible for negligent torts. Quid Pro Quo Depending on the situation, Quid Pro Quo is either a form of bribery or blackmail. In the case of Sam and Paula, it can be argued that Sam used blackmail in order to get what he wanted from Paula out of the situation. After Paula ended the relationship with Sam he began displaying a multitude of bothersome and inappropriate behaviors. Soon after Paula told Sam to stop, Sam began telling Paula that her work was suffering from a “lack of interest” and therefore, negatively affecting the quality of her work. If Paula is successful in establishing a Quid Pro Quo claim, Newcorp will be subject to vicarious liability, which states that “an employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee” (Jennings, 2006, p. 801). If it is discovered that Newcorp acted negligently in allowing Sam’s behavior to occur, the organization will be held liable. Pregnancy Discrimination Act As a result of Sam’s ongoing harassment, Paula requested to be transferred to the Wire-Coating Facility which is not under Sam’s supervision. When he received news of her requested transfer, Sam took action and blocked the transfer. Sam argued that as a direct result of Paula’s gender and child bearing age the chemicals in the wires could be toxic to a fetus, possibly causing birth defects or complications to a pregnancy. Sam’s argument is valid, in that it is company policy that cites the toxic chemicals used in the Wire-Coating Facility may be harmful to a woman’s fetus. However, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978 clearly states “for all Title VII purposes, discrimination based on a woman’s pregnancy is, on its face, discrimination because of her sex” (Jennings, 2006, p. 807). In other words, the fact that a woman is capable of becoming pregnant cannot impede a woman’s opportunities in the workplace. In accordance with Newcorp’s policy regarding the chemicals involved in the Wire-Coating Facility and women who are able to become pregnant, Sam is correct. However, it has been established that Newcorp’s policy is a direct violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Again, swift action must be taken in order to modify Newcorp’s policy concerning women capable of becoming pregnant working in the Wire-Coating Facility. If no action is taken, Newcorp is in direct violation of the PDA and will be held liable accordingly. Newcorp’s Liabilities The situation concerning Sam and Paula has revealed much legality that Newcorp is vulnerable to. If Paula decides to take the case to court, Newscorp could be held liable for a variety of legal infractions. The plaintiff, in this case Paula, could argue that Newcorp acted in a negligent fashion by allowing Sam’s behavior to continue unchecked. Also if the court finds that there is Quid Pro Quo involved, Newcorp could be held to vicarious liability. Lastly, Newcorp is in direct violation of the PDA by holding policies in which women who are of child bearing age can be negatively affected by the chemicals used in the wire-coating process. This can easily be misinterpreted in that due to gender, there is no possibility of advancement for women within the Wire-Coating Facility. In other words, because Paula is a woman who is capable of bearing children, she is not allowed to work in the Wire-Coating Facility. Corrective Action Sexual harassment is a serious societal problem that negatively impacts individuals, organizations, and society overall. Both business scholars and professionals agree that sexual harassment damages an organization’s mission, strategy, and overall stakeholder value (Sierra, Compton, & Frias-Gutierrez, 2008, p. 175-176). For these reasons alone, it is essential that management take corrective action immediately. The first step we must take is to contain and control the situation between Sam and Paula. Allow Paula to transfer to the Wire-Coating Facility with full knowledge of the toxins she will be working with along with the possible side effects. Secondly, give Sam a written and verbal warning stating that all contact with Paula is to be forbidden. If it is found that Sam is still in contact with Paula, corrective measures will be taken up to and including termination in order to cease such activity. Following the actions stated above, Newcorp must follow up with an investigation. It has been discovered that organizations can better avoid liabilities if an investigation is opened within 24 hours of the initial complaint. Also, we will interview anyone who may be a potential witness as well as anyone who has recognized a pattern of harassment (Jennings, 2006, p. 803). Management must approach these interviews with extra caution and sensitivity. Employees who are indirectly exposed to these situations are negatively impacted and influence their morale and productivity (Berdahl & Aquino, 2009, p. 1). In instances such as these, rumors can be spread like wild fire. Therefore, interviews will be privately held, known only by the interviewee and the interviewer. The information gathered from the interviews will most likely prove to be valuable, especially if Sam denies any of the charges against him. After we have held all necessary interviews, we can better determine what course of action to take. Termination If it is found via interviews and internal investigation that Sam has continuously harassed Paula, Newcorp has no choice but to terminate Sam. He would be a liability for Newcorp as well as Paula. If however, the allegations are not as serious as previously thought, write ups would be given to Sam stating that a continuation of his actions will not be tolerated, and a three month probationary period would follow. If any form of harassment is witnessed or reported, then Sam’s employment would be terminated. Wire-Coating Policy The situation between Sam and Paula has revealed a policy that can be misinterpreted and possibly infringe upon one’s civil rights. Newcorp states in its policies and procedures that working in the Wire-Coating Facility can cause harmful effects to a woman’s unborn fetus. However true this may be, we must make clear that either gender is able to work in the facility so long as they know the risks associated with working with toxic chemicals. Currently, Newcorp is at risk of being held liable for infringing upon the PDA. This is unacceptable, and immediate changes are necessary. Conclusion An affair between Sam and one of his subordinates, Paula, has erupted into a possible legal quagmire. Newcorp must isolate and fix any possibility of a hostile work environment for any and all employees. First, we will interview the direct parties. If necessary, we will conduct interviews with possible witnesses. From this, we can better determine whether or not to terminate, suspend, or warn the accused party while, at the same time, ensuring such activity will not continue. Also, this situation has revealed a legal weakness that must be remedied immediately. Newcorp must modify and re-word portions of it policies and procedures that infer that women should not work in the Wire-Coating Facility due to their gender. This modification will eliminate any possible violations of Title VII and limit any liability that Newcorp holds.