Question

Case 2: Emily, an attractive 23-year-old secretary works for Cover-the-Earth Enterprises, a regional sales company employing over 200 employees. In late 2017, Emily is reassigned to work for Dan, a 60-year-old district sales manager. Dan often makes joking remarks to Emily about meeting after work at the Empty Arms Hotel in order to "get to know each other a little better." Emily is amused and laughs at Dan's suggestive remarks, retorting that he is much too old for that nonsense, or that "even if I did agree, you'd probably die of embarrassment or a massive heart attack."

Dan always laughs at Emily's witty retorts. Dan and Emily never meet after work, but often tease each other and engage in this form of repartee in the work area.

a.  Can the complaining party can establish a prima facie case under Title VII.  Why (you must justify your answer based on your knowledge of EEO laws)? (5 points)

b.  If so, identify the type (i.e., racial harassment, mixed motive, sex-plus, quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile environment sexual harassment etc.). (2 points)

c.  Based only on the information provided, who will prevail--the respondent or the complaining party? Why? (4 points)

b. Based only on the information provided, who will prevail--the respondent or the complaining party? Why? (4 pts)

Answer 1

a.

No. Based on the information provided, there is no basis for a prima facie case under Title VII.

In this situation we see that Dan and Emily often “tease each other”. This means this is merely a good natured humor. According to sexual harassment definition of EEOC, we can see that simple teasing, offhand comments, etc. are not prohibited. Naturally, this means the behavior of Dan and Emily does not violate the EEOC guidelines.

Also under the Title VII consideration, there is not enough evidence to put forward for mixed motive or hostile work environment.

b.

There seems to be no case hence there is no need to identify the type.

c.

Based on the information provided, if one of the parties had to file a case against the other, the respondent party would prevail.

The work environment and the case details depict a friendly and reciprocate environment for humor, may it be adult. Naturally, the other party (respondent) has reasonable cause to assume that they were joking and thus replied accordingly. Thus the respondent will likely prevail.

While we can see that Emily may misinterpret the jokes as sexual harassment, Dan may also misinterpret it as age discrimination.