The Court should reverse the partial summary judgment, because Mr. Carson’s actions were threatening and humiliating, because the appellant, pulling the seat belt of the car across her body and expressing his sexual desire for her, or calling her “Luscious Lisa” and touching her in several occasions created an objective hostile workplace environment sexual harassment sufficiently severe to alter the condition of the victim’s employment.
1 An hostile workplace harassment is objectively hostile when the actions of touching a co-worker are severe and pervasive enough to alter the term of the employment.
2 Comments severe enough to alter the work place create a hostile workplace environment.
3 Innuendos create an uncomfortable work environment when are an unwelcome sexual invitation.
Table of Contents
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STATEMENT OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD REVERSE THE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF MAINE, BECAUSE TITLE VII PROHIBITS CREATING A HOSTILE WORK ENVIROMENT ON THE BASES OF THE SEVERITY AND PERVASIVENESS OF THE CONDUCT OF MR. CARSON.
A. The Court should reverse the partial summary judgment, because Mr. Carson’s actions were threatening and humiliating, because the appellant expressed his sexual desire for her, called her “Luscious Lisa,” and touched her on several occasions created an objective hostile workplace environment sufficiently severe to alter the condition of the victim’s employment.
1. An hostile workplace harassment is objectively hostile when the actions of touching a co-worker are severe enough to alter the term of the employment.
2. Comments that are severe enough to alter the work place create a hostile workplace environment.
3. Innuendos create an uncomfortable work environment because are an unwelcome sexual invitation.
B. The Court of Appeals should reverse the partial Summary Judgment, because the appellant was the object of pervasive conduct that permeated the workplace environment, because Mr. Carson frequent actions, touching her hips and making remarks or calling her with an inappropriate nick name several times altered the condition of the victim’s work environment.
1. Frequency can be created by a serial of discriminatory animus towards a person.
2. The duration of sexual remarks, innuendoes, ridicule, and intimidation can occur “over a series of days or perhaps years” may be sufficient, in order to have a hostile workplace environment.
CONCLUSION
Objectives and Topics
This legal document serves as an appellate brief arguing for the reversal of a partial summary judgment granted by the U.S. District Court of Maine in a sexual harassment case. The core objective is to demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment under Title VII, thereby warranting a trial rather than a summary dismissal.
- Legal interpretation of Title VII regarding hostile work environments.
- Evaluation of physical conduct and unwanted touching as actionable harassment.
- Analysis of sexual innuendos and humiliating comments as components of hostility.
- Examination of frequency and duration of harassment in the context of legal precedents.
- Argument against the district court's characterization of incidents as "sporadic."
Excerpt from the Book
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD REVERSE THE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF MAINE, BECAUSE TITLE VII PROHIBITS CREATING A HOSTILE WORK ENVIROMENT ON THE BASES OF THE SEVERITY AND PERVASIVENESS OF THE CONDUCT OF MR. CARSON.
The Court should reverse the partial summary judgment, because the facts satisfy a sufficient severity and pervasiveness to create a hostile workplace environment. The standard of review is De Novo because the court should review the legal question anew, and reverse the Partial Summary Judgment granted by the U.S. District Court of Maine. Pursuant to Civil Right Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1) makes it “an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s sex.” The Harris v. Forklift System,Inc 510 U.S. 17, 1993. Under Federal case law, interpreting the judicial standard for a hostile workplace environment to be actionable, the court should reverse the partial summary judgment, because abusive work environment “is every bit the arbitrary barrier to sexual equality at the workplace that racial harassment is to racial equality.” Meritor Saving Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 1986. Also a plaintiff must meet the test to succeed in a hostile work environment claim: 1)That she (or he) is a member of a protected class; 2) that she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment; 3) that the harassment was based upon sex; 4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of the plaintiff `s employment and create an abusive work environment; 5) that sexually objectively conduct was both objectively and subjectively offensive, such that a reasonable person would find it hostile or abusive and the victim in fact did perceive it to be so; and 6) that some basis for employer liability has been established.
Summary of Chapters
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD REVERSE THE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF MAINE, BECAUSE TITLE VII PROHIBITS CREATING A HOSTILE WORK ENVIROMENT ON THE BASES OF THE SEVERITY AND PERVASIVENESS OF THE CONDUCT OF MR. CARSON.: This chapter establishes the legal foundation for the appeal, arguing that the district court applied an incorrect standard by failing to recognize the severity and pervasiveness of the defendant's actions.
A. The Court should reverse the partial summary judgment, because Mr. Carson’s actions were threatening and humiliating, because the appellant expressed his sexual desire for her, called her “Luscious Lisa,” and touched her on several occasions created an objective hostile workplace environment sufficiently severe to alter the condition of the victim’s employment.: This section details specific instances of physical misconduct and humiliating behavior to argue that the work environment was objectively hostile.
1. An hostile workplace harassment is objectively hostile when the actions of touching a co-worker are severe enough to alter the term of the employment.: This sub-section compares the specific physical contacts in the case with established legal precedents to argue that the touching met the legal threshold for actionable harassment.
2. Comments that are severe enough to alter the work place create a hostile workplace environment.: This sub-section focuses on the verbal harassment, specifically examining how repetitive inappropriate nicknames and sexual remarks create an abusive environment.
3. Innuendos create an uncomfortable work environment because are an unwelcome sexual invitation.: This sub-section analyzes the nature of sexual innuendos as unwelcome invitations that contribute to the creation of a hostile environment.
B. The Court of Appeals should reverse the partial Summary Judgment, because the appellant was the object of pervasive conduct that permeated the workplace environment, because Mr. Carson frequent actions, touching her hips and making remarks or calling her with an inappropriate nick name several times altered the condition of the victim’s work environment.: This section challenges the district court’s finding that the incidents were sporadic, arguing instead that the pervasive nature of the conduct permeated the workplace.
1. Frequency can be created by a serial of discriminatory animus towards a person.: This sub-section addresses the frequency of the incidents, using case law to argue that the weekly occurrences are sufficient to establish pervasive harassment.
2. The duration of sexual remarks, innuendoes, ridicule, and intimidation can occur “over a series of days or perhaps years” may be sufficient, in order to have a hostile workplace environment.: This sub-section argues that the duration of the employment and the incidents is sufficient under law to constitute a hostile work environment claim.
Keywords
Sexual Harassment, Title VII, Hostile Work Environment, Employment Law, Summary Judgment, Pervasiveness, Severity, Discriminatory Animus, Workplace Conduct, Legal Precedent, Appellate Brief, Civil Rights Act, Offensive Conduct, Unwelcome Touching, Sexual Innuendo
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary purpose of this legal document?
This document is an appellate brief aimed at reversing a partial summary judgment granted by the U.S. District Court of Maine in a sexual harassment case brought by Lisa Hebert against Gentile Glow, Inc.
What are the central themes discussed in this work?
The central themes include the legal definitions of a hostile work environment, the significance of severe and pervasive conduct, the impact of physical and verbal sexual harassment in the workplace, and the application of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
What is the main legal argument regarding the summary judgment?
The appellant argues that the district court erred by incorrectly determining that the defendant's conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, and by dismissing the claim based on a flawed assessment of the incidents' frequency and duration.
Which legal methodology is utilized in this argument?
The work employs a comparative legal analysis, citing numerous federal case law precedents (such as Harris v. Forklift System, Inc. and O'Rourke v. City of Providence) to demonstrate how the facts of this case align with legally actionable harassment.
What specific topics are covered in the main body?
The main body treats the objective hostility of physical touching, the psychological and environmental impact of sexual comments, the nature of innuendo as sexual invitation, and the legal analysis of whether incidents are "sporadic" or part of a pervasive pattern.
Which keywords best characterize this legal analysis?
Key terms include Title VII, Hostile Work Environment, Sexual Harassment, Pervasiveness, Severity, and Discriminatory Animus.
How does the author categorize the defendant's nickname usage?
The author argues that using inappropriate nicknames like "Lucious Lisa" serves as a form of verbal sexual harassment that contributes to an abusive and hostile environment, analogous to other offensive comments in cited case law.
Why is the "duration" of the harassment considered relevant by the author?
The author argues that the district court incorrectly used the relatively short duration of the plaintiff's employment to dismiss the claim, asserting that legal precedents establish that a hostile work environment is a series of acts that can occur over any length of time, not requiring years of duration.
- Quote paper
- Giovanni Piepoli (Author), 2006, Advanced legal writing. Case about hostile work environment and sexual harassment, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/358338
