The good ol' boy system: alive and well at Laocoon Aeronautics Corporation.(Instructor's Note)

Oyler, Jennifer D. ; Pryor, Mildred Golden ; Pane Haden, Stephanie S. 等

CASE DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this case is to present a dilemma regarding the actions that should be taken in response to incidences of sexual harassment at Laocoon Aeronautics Corporation. Averil Hughes, a high-ranking and well-respected director on the executive leadership team at Laocoon, is offended by the sexual propositions and innuendos made to her by her direct supervisor, William Prewett. Her boss's behavior not only incites an array of negative emotions within her, but she believes that by not appeasing Prewett's sexual advances her job performance and future at the company could be compromised. Averil eventually reports the harassment to William's direct supervisor, Tony Zi. The case concludes with Tony contemplating how he should handle this complicated and delicate situation.

CASE SYNOPSIS

This cutting-edge, dilemma case examines sexual harassment from the lens of a female executive in the gender-biased, U.S. defense industry. The uniqueness of this case is that while more females are moving into male-dominated organizations in this industry, very few cases have examined sexual harassment within these organizations. The majority of the case focuses on Averil Hughes' meteoric rise from employee to the executive ranks within Laocoon Aeronautics Corporation and chronicles events that led to her filing a sexual harassment claim against her boss and Vice-President of Military Aerospace and Electronic Systems, William Prewett. In addition, the case provides a broad overview of the U.S Defense Industry and detailed insight into the organizational culture at Laocoon Aeronautics Corporation. The case concludes with Averil reporting the sexual harassment claim to William's boss, Tony Zi, the Executive Vice-President of Business Development and Operations. Tony Zi is faced with a difficult decision- how to legally manage a sexual harassment claim that involves his best friend, William Prewett, and one of his star hires, Averil Hughes.

INSTRUCTOR'S NOTES

Intended Audience and Case Objectives

This case is most appropriate for use in the human resource management (HR) course at the undergraduate or graduate level. The teaching objectives of this case are to:

* Introduce students to U.S. legal standards on sexual harassment and the role of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and

* Understand the role of organizational culture and how culture can communicate tolerance of sexual harassment.

HYPOTHETICAL TEACHING PLAN

Sexual Harassment Lecture

Before using this case for classroom discussion, the instructor should provide a lecture on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and explicitly focus on the content and meaning of Title VII in relation to sexual harassment. In addition, the instructor should explain the importance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and how the EEOC issues guidelines on the prevention of sexual harassment. Further, the instructor may briefly explain how to determine sexual harassment liability. In order to provide more detailed information on EEOC guidelines and determination of sexual harassment liability, the instructor is referred to Appendixes 1, 2, and 3 in the case.

To complement student's understanding of sexual harassment law, the instructor should discuss several important sexual harassment cases. For example, a landmark case includes Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson in which the Supreme Court determined that sexual harassment was a form of gender discrimination in employment and was a direct violation of Title VII. In addition, an interesting sexual harassment case to discuss in class is Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite, as this hostile work environment case was the first sexual harassment case to be certified as a class action lawsuit. To clearly illustrate this case, the instructor could also use the movie North Country as a supplemental instructional tool. In addition, the instructor can discuss a quid pro quo case such as Bryson v. Chicago State University and a hostile work environment case such as Harris v. Forklift Systems. Additional sexual harassment cases that could be reviewed include a coworker harassment case such as Blakely v. Continental Airlines and supervisor harassment cases such as Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton. The latter two cases are very important cases because they set the reasonable care standard that determines employer liability for sexual harassment. In essence, the major components of reasonable care include: establishing a sexual harassment policy, training all employees on the policy, clearly communicating the policy to all employees on a regular basis, and having clear procedures for reporting behavior that allows employees to have access to management other than their supervisors.

As an alternative to the instructor solely lecturing on this subject, an interesting approach may include a cooperative effort with history and legal faculty at your university or college. Specifically, one of the authors involved with this case has invited a Civil Rights historian and Civil Rights attorney as guest speakers to the class. Each speaker usually takes 15-20 minutes of class time followed by a 10-15 minute question and answer session with students. In this lecture, the historian typically focuses on the events leading up to and surrounding the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Next, the attorney highlights the implications from the previously mentioned sexual harassment cases and additional federal statutes such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Organizational Culture Lecture

The instructor should also provide a brief overview of organizational culture. A definition of culture and discussion regarding some of the various types of culture should be included. After the various types of culture are addressed, the students can be asked to determine the type of culture that appears to be prevalent at Laocoon. Additionally, the instructor should devote specific attention to the ways in which a strong organizational culture can act as a barrier to certain company initiatives; in this particular case, as a barrier to change and to diversity. Most texts on organizational behavior (e.g. Bowditch & Buono, Robbins & Judge, 2009) or diversity management (Bell, 2007) should help with this portion of the lecture. The deeply embedded culture at Laocoon could be a major obstacle to the quality and excellence changes that Averil is trying to initiate at the company. The strong culture, originated and sustained by the dominant male workforce at Laocoon, is most likely making it difficult for female employees to be accepted and respected, and is therefore a barrier to diversity.

SUGGESTED DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

The following discussion questions should be provided to students as advanced assignments and to facilitate classroom discussion of the case.

1. Did Averil suffer sexual harassment from William Prewett? If so, is Laocoon Aeronautics Corporation liable for the sexual harassment?

Students should begin their initial research at the following EEOC websites: http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.html and http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html. The first EEOC website clearly defines sexual harassment and provides statistics on EEOC sexual harassment claims, while the second EEOC website provides additional facts about sexual harassment. Students should only use the EEOC as an Internet source, but other Internet sources such as Wikipedia and Law Guru are strictly forbidden. Finally, students may use books, lecture notes, and additional references from electronic library databases such as ABI/Inform to supplement their responses.

Evaluation of Sexual Harassment and Employer Liability

The first step in the evaluation of sexual harassment is for students to determine whether or not Averil experienced the EEOC definition of sexual harassment: "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature" (2009, para. 2). On at least three separate occasions, William Prewett made unwelcome sexual advances and innuendos towards Averil Hughes. During the first incident at the Twisted Olive, William blatantly made sexual advances and comments towards Averil. In response to William's advances, Averil first suggested that William was drunk and then she abruptly left William at the bar. The second incident occurred in William's office in which William invited Averil to his office under the guise of discussing the Organizational Excellence program. Again, William made sexual advances towards Averil and invited her to a local hotel for drinks and sex. At this point, Averil vehemently details her disgust to him and clearly explains that his propositions were inappropriate. On the third occasion, William explained to Averil that he would like to discuss the Organizational Excellence program over drinks and dinner one night after work. Also, he invited her to his lake house for a quality sexual experience. Based on these set of circumstances, students should ascertain that sexual harassment has occurred.

Most students will recognize that a hostile environment exists. Specifically, William targeted Averil with his sexual comments, and his behavior was offensive to her. Obviously, William has aided in the creation of the hostile environment, but the hostile environment proliferates throughout the organization. Specifically, Averil not only experiences this hostile environment with her boss, but also she deals with offensive working conditions when she attends executive sexual harassment training. Specifically, many of the executives make lewd and degrading comments about female employees during this training.

Astute students will recognize quid pro quo harassment is also evident in this case. Quid pro quo sexual harassment was experienced by Averil when William refused to participate in the Organizational Excellence initiative unless Averil agreed to dinner and drinks one night after work. Although Averil never succumbed to sex with William nor did she suffer tangible employment action, in the eyes of the Supreme Court (e.g. Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth), sexual harassment has occurred. Specifically, the nonparticipation of William's division in the Organizational Excellence program could be construed as a tangible threat to Averil's employee benefits. Specifically, Averil's pay raises and promotional opportunities are directly linked to her successful completion of performance objectives. Although this situation is not discussed specifically in the case, we can determine the Organizational Excellence initiative is a key component of Averil's job.

Although Averil suffered tangible employee action in the eyes of the courts, Laocoon Aeronautics Corporation has an affirmative defense because the company has exercised reasonable care. Specifically, the company has established a well-defined sexual harassment policy, the policy is communicated throughout the organization, all employees are involved in annual sexual harassment training, and a clear open-door policy is in place. Because the employer has preemptively tried to prohibit sexual harassment, Laocoon cannot be held liable for William's sexual harassment. It is important to note that some top-notch graduate students might argue that reasonable care was not established by Laocoon. Specifically, if human resources was aware of executive and manager behavior during the annual sexual harassment training and did not take corrective action, the company could potentially be held liable for sexual harassment.

2. Describe the organizational culture at Laocoon Aeronautics Corporation. How could it be improved?

To assist students with this question, the instructor should also suggest that students read the following articles that provide potential solutions to preventing sexual harassment in the workplace.

* Bell, M.P., Quick, J.C., & Cycyota, C.S. (2002). Assessment and prevention of sexual harassment of employees: An applied guide to creating healthy organizations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 10, 160-167.

* Daniel, T.A. (2003). Developing a "culture of compliance" to prevent sexual harassment. Employment Relations Today, 30, 33-42.

For this question, students should give examples of organizational characteristics that support Laocoon's culture. From the previous question, students will recognize that Laocoon's human resource and legal departments had developed a formal sexual harassment policy, provided clear procedures for the complaint process, clearly communicated the policy throughout the organization, and required annual sexual harassment training for executives, managers, supervisors, and employees. However, students will question why sexual harassment still occurred in this organization given that the company tried to implement several preventive steps to curb harassment. At this point, the instructor must emphasize that Laocoon did not make changes to the organizational culture, top management was not committed to the prevention of sexual harassment, and the job context was clearly skewed in favor of males and nontraditional jobs. Organizational researchers have suggested that this combination of organizational characteristics results in an unhealthy, organizational culture that supports sexual harassment (Bell, Quick, & Cycyota, 2002). In sum, most students will come to understand that the sexual harassment policy was in great conflict with the culture at Laocoon.

To illustrate these pitfalls at Laocoon, the instructor should remind the students that it was apparent from the case that Laocoon had done little to change the culture of the organization even after the implementation of the sexual harassment policy and other preventive measures. Specifically, many of the male executives and managers joked about the content of the sexual harassment training courses and suggested that the training helped them learn to how get away with harassment at higher levels in the organization. Even worse was the fact that many of the managers would sign into training, sit at the back of the room, and leave training before it was completed. This type of blatant disregard for sexual harassment training was apparent in the top levels of the organization, as Tony Zi admitted that he was one of the executives who made snide remarks about the training.

The question that surfaces is why did personnel from the Human Resources Department do nothing about the behavior of these executives and managers? Why was attention and correction to their negative behaviors not pursued? The most obvious answer was that Laocoon's culture was inherently strong and shielded by a male-dominated bureaucracy that superficially implemented sexual harassment policies in response to changing legal requirements in the external environment. In fact, if human resources were aware of the behavior by executives and managers during the training sessions, they simply reinforced negative behaviors and existing norms embedded in Laocoon's organizational culture.

Students will also recognize that Tony, the Executive Vice President of Business Development and Operations, was obviously fearful of confrontation with William because he believed that William was his best Vice President and his best friend. Further complicating the matter was the fact that other managers at Laocoon were just as guilty of sexual harassment as William. For years, executives and managers at Laocoon had not only permitted violations of sexual harassment, but they had also personally violated the procedures against sexual harassment. Therefore, the macho work environment would be considered hostile to females, and the unhealthy organizational culture would be perceived as one that nurtures sexual harassment.

Laocoon must develop a strong and collective stance against sexual harassment. Most students will suggest that the top management team must buy into the sexual harassment policy and demonstrate their commitment towards the enforcement of the policy. In effect, the top management team must clearly illustrate their support for a zero-tolerance attitude towards sexual harassment. By demonstrating their commitment, top management sets the tone for the entire organization. Further, some students may suggest that executives, managers, supervisors, or employees that deviate from the policy should be terminated. To complement this policy, the organization must continue to offer regular sexual harassment training to all executives, managers, supervisors, and employees at Laocoon. In addition, Daniel (2003) suggests that an employer can demonstrate commitment to keeping an organization free of sexual harassment by also using "...comprehensive policy development, broad policy dissemination to all employees, multiple complaint resolution alternatives, quick and thorough investigations, prompt corrective action, counseling and assistance for victims, and frequent and mandatory training for both employees and supervisors" (p. 36). Finally, the EEOC (2008) suggests that prevention of sexual harassment is the most important tool in the workplace by providing clear communication that sexual harassment is not acceptable in tandem with a sexual harassment policy and an effective grievance system.

3. What would you do if you were Tony? Why?

To assist students with this question, the instructor should suggest that students use the following EEOC guidelines to develop their response. Students should pay specific attention to the section on First Prong of Affirmative Defense: Employer's Duty to Exercise Reasonable Care.

* Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1999, June 21). Enforcement guidance:

Vicarious employer liability for unlawful harassment by supervisors. Retrieved March 5, 2009, from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html#VC

According to the EEOC enforcement guidelines (1999), Tony should assure Averil that her complaint will remain confidential to the extent the anonymity does not interfere with the investigation. Next, Tony should report the incident immediately to human resources. Then, Laocoon's human resources department should locate an individual who is well-trained in interviewing witnesses and who has no control over the investigation to conduct an unbiased investigation of the alleged situation(s). In the meantime, human resources must ensure that the parties do not come into contact with each other during the investigation. Thus, human resources must either transfer the plaintiff to another position or place the plaintiff on non-disciplinary leave to ensure further potential harassment does not occur. Laocoon, Tony, and human resources must be very careful to avoid any form of perceived or actual retaliation towards the complainant because tangible employment action results in employer negligence. After the interview process commences, and the evidence supports the complainant allegations of harassment, Laocoon should take corrective action. On the other hand, if evidence did not support the complainant's allegations of harassment, preventive measures such as training and monitoring should take place. In line with the EEOC Enforcement Guidelines for appropriate correction action (1999), corrective action includes:

* "Oral or written warning or reprimand,

*Transfer or reassignment,

* Demotion,

* Reduction of wages,

* Suspension,

* Discharge,

* Training or counseling of harasser to ensure that s/he understands why his or her conduct violated the employer's anti-harassment policy, and

* Monitoring of harasser to ensure that harassment stops" (para. 7).

REFERENCES

Bell, M.P. (2007). Diversity in organizations. Mason, OH: Cengage.

Bell, M.P., Quick, J.C., & Cycyota, C.S. (2002). Assessment and prevention of sexual harassment of employees: An applied guide to creating healthy organizations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 10, 160-167.

Blakely v. Continental Airlines, 751 A.2d 538 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 2000).

Bowditch, J.L, & Buono, A.F. (2007). A primer on organizational behavior (7th ed.). John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ.

Bryson v. Chicago State University, 96 F.3d 912, 915 (7th Cir. 1996). Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998). Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. [sections] 2000e etseq. (1964). Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. [sections] 1981 (1991).

Daniel, T.A. (2003). Developing a "culture of compliance" to prevent sexual harassment. Employment Relations Today, 30, 33-42.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1999, June 21). Enforcement guidance: Vicarious employer liability for unlawful harassment by supervisors. Retrieved March 5, 2009, from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html#VC

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2008, March 4). Sexual harassment. Retrieved March 5, 2009, from http://eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.html

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2009, March 11). Sexual harassment. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.html

Farragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998).

Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993).

Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co., 130 F.3d 1287 (8th Cir. 1997).

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Organizational behavior (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2002, June 17). Facts about sexual harassment. Retrieved March 5, 2009, from http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html

ENDNOTES

(1) This case is based upon actual events in an existing organization, but all names of actual persons and the organization are disguised for purposes of anonymity. Also, an earlier version of this case was presented at the 2009 Southwest Case Research Association Meeting in Oklahoma City, OK.

Jennifer D. Oyler, Texas A & M University of Commerce

Mildred Golden Pryor, Texas A & M University of Commerce

Stephanie S. Pane Haden, Texas A & M University of Commerce