In the case of Anna v her employers, a case for employment discrimination was created when her supervisor Michael first violated company policy then refused to mitigate the results of that violation. Anna did her part by requesting that policy violations stop and then asking for mitigation when the policy violations resulted in a hostile work environment for herself. The company failed to address either the policy violations with the supervisor or the resulting actions of those policy violations.
Case of Discrimination
Claims of hostile work environment as a result of employee discrimination are on the increase (Saadem, 2011). Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964 is intended to provide protection and relief against discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, national origin, and religion. (EEOC, 1964a) The argument is that Anna’s claim against her employers is valid on the basis of gender discrimination (EEOC, 1964b). Anna’s supervisor Michael would never have taken the actions that he did with Anna had she been a man. Once those actions were demonstrated to have an adverse reaction on both the work environment and employment, no remediation actions were taken
…show more content…
Rather it provides guidance for the courts in the meaning of the law, in this case, Title VII (Sherrod, 2014). The Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. case demonstrated that Title VII is violated when a person is subject to ridicule and insult as what happened in the case Anna where office romance rumors made her an outcast. This is also supported by Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson where it was determined that Title Vii is violated where an environment is created that any reasonable person would find hostile (Harris v Forklift, 1993). In Anna’s case, she was further damaged under Title VII when the rumors resulted in downgrades in her performance and being passed over for