Free Law. Cases Essay Sample
Berkeley Case is one that qualifies to be treated with the seriousness and objectiveness that it deserves. It does to me serve as a severe type and not pervasive as far as her working environment is concerned. I thus dissent to any judgment that does not take this case with the desirable seriousness. Sexual harassment, by reminiscent staring and suggestive use of words does bar her from undertaking her roles in an effective manner, gets her offended and feel abused. Circumstances in her case are of the standards desirable to render a fair judgment on her woes at QVC after her merger with Robbins.
THERESA WALDO v. CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY (Michigan, 2011), case circumstances are related to what Berkeley is subjected to. Usage of suggestive language and abusive words that she perceives as being abusive are the similarities that are notable in this case (Pound, 2010). From DIANA DUNCAN V. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (US, 2002), similarities are also rampart as to whether the working environment that Berkeley was subjected to was hostile or was a misconception of the whole issue. More over, from CLARK v. SUNIPA II INC (Maryland, 2011) case, similarities in circumstances of abuse are also rampart in relation to Berkeley working environment in the hands of Patrick, the VP marketing at QVC. Usage of suggestive language, attention and staring and asking for dates outside work are the rampart circumstances that bring into perspective the similarities involved.
In THERESA WALDO v. CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY (Michigan, 2011), case, the plaintiff did win and was compensated for the damages that she had sustained from her hostile working environment. From CLARK v. SUNIPA II INC (Maryland, 2011) case, it was held that the isolated hugging did alter the conditions of employment and it was abusive; severe or pervasive. From DIANA DUNCAN V. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (US, 2002) case, the plaintiff lost the case but as Judge Richard Arnold dissents the judgment the court did error in its decision that Ms, Duncan did not face severe or pervasive harassment that was substantial to create an hostile environment at work.
From Diana Duncan v. General Motors Corporation (US, 2002) case, David Hansen, the presiding circuit judge, outlined that;
“….in the course of determining whether the respective conduct is sever or qualifies as pervasive, it is practical to look to the totality of the circumstances. This is inclusive of the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its level of severity to determine whether it’s physically threatening or humiliating, or qualifies as a mere offensive utterance and whether it unreasonably interferes with the affected employee performance at work…” Based on the above judicial precedent, Berkeley case is severe and I dissent to the argument tthat it is merely usage of words. This is because Berkeley is offended by attention and words that Patrick adopts and uses when referring to her mostly “beautiful and smart” in front of the clients. Berkeley could not perceive such use of words as “mere” part of the “marketing corporate world language” based on her tribulations in the office. Patrick does hinder her work performance, abuses her sexually and frequently repeats his discriminatory conduct. According to BRENDACLARK v. SUNIPA II INC (Maryland, 2011), Alexander Williams, Jr. Points out clearly that;
“…..the court makes its determination by the consideration of totality of the case circumstances. He argues that the court may take into consideration the following circumstances when determining whether the conduct in question alters the conditions of employment and does create an abusive working environment; its severity, frequency, whether its humiliating, whether it unreasonably interferes with the employees performance at work and the psychological effect of the alleged harassment on the involved employee..” According toHolmes (2006), based on these conditions, it is implausible that the conduct in question; Patrick’s conduct; VP marketing at QVC resulted to an alteration of the Berkeley employment and resulted to the creation of an abusive working environment. Berkeley allegations point to staring and usage of abusive language as isolated. These are conditions that she repeatedly was subjected to, humiliated her and to an unreasonable extent did interfere with her work performance. In addition, Patrick’s behavior did subject her to psychological harassment to an extent that affected her family relations. In the case of THERESA WALDO v. CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY (Michigan, 2011), Judge Janet T. Neff, outlines that;
“…. the law requires that the plaintiff be able to show a preponderance of evidence that the workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victims employment and create an abusive working environment.” In addition, the law requires majority of evidence that the “hostile work environment be both objectively and subjectively offensive; one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive and one that the victim in fact perceive to be so.” Berkeley did perceive the actions of Patrick to her as being abusive and creating a hostile working environment. This meant that these actions were offensive in a large way and did not permit her to perform at work. Based on the above precedent cases, the behavior by Patrick Wharton towards Molly was severe.
In my opion, the judicial precedents in some of the cases especially DIANA DUNCAN V. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (US, 2002) err in making of judgments. The legal policy should be that each of the cases shall be concluded based on the respective circumstances and the hostility of the environment and not on the level of harassment (Robert, 2010). In this case, I am meant to mean that any action that subjects one to feeling offended that a person in right of mind would perceive as so should be punishable by law as it qualifies to have created a hostile working environment. Frequent abuse makes the case to qualify fro a fierce judgment.