Superiority of Interest

Superiority of Interest-Based Negotiations

Student’s Name

Institution’s Name

Date

Superiority of Interest-Based Negotiations

Introduction

Sidebar describes a sexual harassment case between C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. and Reeves, where Revees claimed to have been subjected to a hostile work environment following continuous use of sexually abusive language by other male coworkers for period of three years. Having been the only woman in her section of work, the use of offensive sexual words, though not directed to her made her uncomfortable and sometimes scared in her workplace. Revees claimed that these demeaning offensive words made her unable to continue working in the company, and forced her to resign. This paper focuses on evaluating this case further.

Element of the Case

Revees sued the company with a claim of sexual harassment and hostile work environment. The two case elements for this particular claim include pervasive or severe, and based on. To evaluate the pervasive or severe elements the aspects of frequency, severity, physically humiliating or threatening, and unreasonable job performance interference were reviewed. To evaluate based on element, the court reviewed judgment of the previous cases to determine whether the hostile work environment claim holds. Based on this element, the Supreme Court stated that in cases of hostile work environment, the crucial matter is whether members of single sex are exposed to detrimental employment conditions or terms different to members to members of opposite sex. To satiate the element of based on a plaintiff had to effectively demonstrate that individuals of opposite sex situated in a similar condition as her were treated better and differently.

The main aspect that guided this section is the evaluation of if harassment based on offensive language was good enough to entitle Revees to be considered legible for protection despite her not being the target of the offensive sexual language and despite having other workmate exposed to a similar situation. The court established that offensive sexual words such as slut, tramp, and bitch, were extra demeaning to woman compared to men. Thus they might be regarded to have a certain level of weight in scales of sexual harassment. As guided by race-discrimination cases, the Supreme Court held that sex explicit language satiates the element of based on in a hostile sexual harassment work setting case irrespective of not directly targeting the complaint. Similar to establishment that the language that is racially offensive does not have to be targeted to the complaint so as to support a claim of hostile work setting Title VII, then the sexually abusive language do not need to be directed to an individual to be supported by Title VII (Dol.gov, 2017). The CHRW defense argued that basing the case on race scenario is misplaced since race is very different from sex. The claim created a barrier on sexual equity especially when it is equated to racial harassment.

With regard to pervasive or severe element, the court evaluated the objective and subjective component of pervasive or severe. In their defense CH RW argued that harassment was not adequately pervasive or severe to alter the condition and terms of Reeve’s employment. They defense proofed that Revee work was perfect and she always got increased responsibilities per review due to improved performance, which the Supreme Court disagreed. With regard to frequency, the CHRW workers were found to use the claimed specific sex language in the presence of Reeve daily and the invasive radio program daily and thus this claim favored Reeves. With regard to severity, the court determined that the words were not directly targeting the complaint and thus the level of severity was low. However the entire situation was found to be humiliating especially the offensive radio program, being the only women in the work station. Also exposure to phonography in colleagues’ possession also increased the level of humiliation. This claim was also supported by the workers warning earplug warning. With regard to unreasonable job performance interference, the court concluded that the behavior interfered with Revees job performance since she wasted time reporting incidences, she had concentration problem, writing note of their offensive words, and sometimes, she was forced to leave the station due to discomfort. The circuit established the situation created an abusive work setting and thus, the previous judgment in favor of the company was reversed.

Liability in Case a Third Party is involved in the Sexual Harassment Case

The Title VII does acknowledge the workplace sexual harassment. However, it does not clearly define what should happen when a third party; independent contractor harasses a worker or is harassed by a worker in the workplace. Nevertheless, the recent Santos v. Puerto Rico Children’s Hosp., D.P.R. case, the court created the possibility of the employer being held liable of independent contractors’ sexual harassment action. This is applicable especially in a situation where the employer is found to have some clue that such incidences were happening, and failed to take suitable and immediate action to handle the situation. Employer should also ensure that a negative measure is not taken to correct the mistake especially on the employee side.

References

Dol.gov. (2017). Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Retrieved from < https://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/2000e-16.htm>

Ingrid REEVES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

Rosa-Santos v. Puerto Rico Children’s Hospital, Inc. et al, No. 3:2011cv01539 – Document 67 (D.P.R. 2012).