Laying it on the table: linestat corporation.(Instructor's Note)

Jenkins, Keith ; Stretcher, Robert

CASE DESCRIPTION

The primary issue in this case involves the managerial response to an unusual exchange between two managers of Linestat Corporation. The case is appropriate for undergraduate management, human resources management, and business law courses. The case is designed to to introduce students to the concepts of sexual harassment and be taught/discussed in a 45-minute time frame, and should require about an hour of outside preparation by students.

CASE SYNOPSIS

Marinda Vasquez, a senior branch officer for Linestat Corporation, and her boss, Ron Farrington, are faced with an unusual situation. Another of the branch's night managers, Derek Randle, a night technical services operator, has been observed in an inappropriate act after-hours in the company's boardroom. Statutes and precedents are presented relating to the incident, and the reader is tasked with determining a solution to the situation, deciding on appropriate managerial actions.

INSTRUCTORS' NOTES

The instructor can make individual or group assignments as appropriate to the size of the class. Groups would then be required to come to a consensus as to conclusions.

Specific Questions, Assignments and teaching Methodologies

1. What would you want to know from Marinda in reference to Derek?

Marinda should be requested to furnish a complete review of Derek's employment history prior to this event. In any action involving employee conduct that is not acceptable the complete work history should be examined. This would include the hiring process, examining his application, background check, and reports of his interviews. The work history, consisting of his annual reviews or special reports should be reviewed to see if there have been any prior violations of company policy. In addition, Marinda should submit a complete written report of the incident describing the events in sequence. The report should include a complete dialogue of the conversations identifying each speaker.

2. Does Derek's action constitute sexual discrimination? Could Ron's response or lack of action constitute sexual harassment of Marinda?

Derek's act was not directed at Marinda, nor did the act attempt to influence his job rating or acquire another benefit from Marinda. The act therefore does not rise to the level of quid pro quo harassment. Derek's act does, however, have the possibility of having created a hostile environment for Marinda. The court has defined a five element test that should be used to determine whether Marinda has been subjected to hostile environment by Derek. 1. Was Marinda a member of a protected class? 2. Was Marinda subjected to an unwelcome harassment? 3. Was the harassment sexual in nature? 4. Did the harassment affect the condition, term or condition of Marinda's employment? 5. Did the company take remedial action upon knowledge of the harassment?

Marinda is clearly a member of a protected class as a woman. The conduct of Derek was uninvited in any manner by Marinda thereby qualifying it as unwelcome. Derek's action was not directed towards Marinda but his girlfriend. Derek could argue that he was not harassing Marinda. The courts have, however, held that a single act even if not directed toward an individual can be harassing depending upon the severity. Failing to take any action could result in the company allowing a hostile environment to be created for Marinda.

3. What instruction should Ron give to Marinda? What should Ron do in regard to Marinda and her security?

Ron should review the information with Marinda concerning Derek's file to help him determine Derek's value to the company. Marinda, as Derek's immediate supervisor can best provide current information as to Derek's job performance and the problems of replacing him if it becomes necessary. Since Marinda is Derek's supervisor and there is potential claim for sexual harrassment, Ron should instruct her to communicate with Derek only when in the presence of another person or in writing. The company has a duty to prevent Marinda from being exposed to further unwanted conduct of a sexual nature. The company should take appropriate security measures to preclude Derek's further contact with Marinda. Marinda should be given the opportunity to relocate if she feels threatened.

4. What action should be taken with reference to Derek?

Ron should relieve Derek of his duties until a meeting with Ron can be arranged. If Ron cannot reach him by phone he should send a notice to Derek's home address by registered mail. Ron can terminate Derek for violation of company policy, assuming that the company does not permit unauthorized persons (the girlfriend) to use company facilities. Discharge based on these grounds would be for Derek bringing his girlfriend to the company facility. Derek would also be subject to dismissal for failure to use his time for the benefit of the company, since he is the night technical services operator, and was not engaged in company technical services (but was on a personal lark).

Ron should make a complete review of Derek's work record. If he does not do this personally, it should be assigned to another supervisor who does not directly work with either Marinda or Derek. If this the first event of any problem in Derek's work history, Ron could reprimand him, transfer him to another position that requires no contact with Marinda, and require an agreement signed by Derek that any future conduct of sexual character would result in termination. If there have been other events of harassing behavior, Ron should terminate Derek.

5. What steps should the company take to provide for the company's interest?

The company's first steps should be to document the entire incident and the follow up investigation. Ron or some other person independent of the events should take statements of Marinda, and if possible, Derek. The company should review the company's policies in relation to employee behavior as set forth in employee handbooks, and/or training sessions to highlight what violations of company policy have occurred. Based on Marinda's observation of Derek "with someone else in the parking lot" the company should try to determine who the person was and if they were present at the time the incident occurred. The person could have been a witness to the event. If he person was present the company should get the statement of the person.

EPILOGUE

Derek never returned and Ron and Marinda were spared the confrontation, a rather difficult situation to resolve. No lawsuit was ever filed regarding the event by either Derek, Marinda, or Linestat Corporation.

REFERENCES

Chamberlin v. 101 Realty, Inc. 915 F.2d 777, C.A.1 (N.H.), 1990.

Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. 760 F.Supp. 1486.

TERESA HARRIS, PETITIONER v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC. 510 U.S. 17 1993

Keith Jenkins, Sam Houston State University

Robert Stretcher, Sam Houston State University