SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This is a case of Bakker & Thomas negligently allowing appellant and former employee Anita Jones to suffer

from hostile environment sexual harassment as enumerated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2. An employer is liable for an employee’s harassment when they have been negligent either in discovering or remedying the harassment. Through this appeal, Ms. Jones, brings her case before this Court on de novo review. Ms. Jones states that under the standards set by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII, Bakker & Thomas had both constructive and actual notice of her sexual harassment, and that Bakker & Thomas failed to take adequate remedial measures. Ms. Jones asks this Court to reverse the trial court’s ruling that Bakker & Thomas is not liable to Ms. Jones on the theory of negligence. First, the trial court incorreclty found that Bakker & Thomas was not liable to Jones under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2 for hostile environment sexual harassment upon the theory of negligence, because Jones was unable to follow Bakker & Thomas’s policy for reporting sexual harrassment. Ms. Jones did not follow Bakker & Thomas’s policy because the policy was unreasonable. As the United States Supreme Court stated, the presence of a grievance procedure does not automatically pardon an employer from liability. The procedure must facilitate an employee’s reporting instances of sexual harassment. In this case, Bakker & Thomas’s grievance procedure was inadequate and unreasonable, because Jones had no independent point person outlined in the policy to whom she could reasonably report. The grievance procedure listed two possible channels of reporting; in reality both channels discouraged Ms. Jones to report her harasser. Williams and Swaggart, the sole channels explicitly mentioned in the policy, had uncomfortably strong ties to Ms. Jones’s harasser, Clarence Kennedy. Swaggart was Kennedy’s brother in law, and Williams, Kennedy, and Swaggart went to lunch together most days. Also, they

because Tripp was the leader of the firm’s sexual harassment training program. Jones wrote an unsigned letter to the Human Resources Director. the Court must determine if the employee reported to the individual she reasonably believed to be able to receive and forward complaints of harassment. Therefore. Williams and Swaggart were unacceptable to report to due to their close ties to Kennedy. Kennedy was a rainmaker for the firm. this Court should find that Bakker & Thomas’s grievance procedure failed to encourage employees to report being sexually harassed. Second. in that she waited five full business days before responding to the complaint. When an employer fails to establish adequate channels for complaint. once she had received Jones’s letter. Jones’s efforts. i. and in fact was a hindrance to Ms. the policy did not provide adequate alternative avenues of redress. Jones sought a more reasonable person for her to report the harassment. Tripp. giving Bakker & Thomas actual notice. As a result. informing her that she was being sexually harrassed by Kennedy. and Anita Jones failed to invoke that policy. Although Tripp was not a designated channel under the policy. the tiral court incorreclty found that Bakker & Thomas is protected from a claim of sexual harassment premised on actual knowledge because it had in effect a well disseminated policy against sexual harassment. Bakker & Thomas can be said to have had constructive notice of Ms. making reporting him to the managing partner all the more difficult for Jones. Tripp‘s response was inadequate in . As stated above. Because the appropriate channels were blocked. Jones heard Tripp state that she would "take care“ of any harassment that she came across. Jones’s sexual harassment. it is ordinarily the duty of a human resources director to receive and forward complaints of sexual harassment. Jones reasonably thought Tripp to be an appropriate person to report harassment. Tripp failed to take adequate remedial measures. Furthermore. Furthermore. In one session. as occurred in this case.e.were often known to play golf together. the head of human resources. Because both possible persons to whom Jones could report were such unpalatable options.

Bakker & Thomas did have actual notice because Jones informed Williams of her sexual harrassment. Tripp should have initiated an investigation to uncover the situation. Because their policy was inadequate. Baker & Thomas did not take adequate remedial measures once Williams was notified because of Williams’s negligence. because Ms. insisting that she 'wear a tight sweater‘ to their late night work-related rendezvous. . Because Jones saw no further avenues for redress. Jones. Had he taken Jones’s complaint seriously. Williams should have seen to it that Kennedy and Jones were taken off the same project. If Bakker & Thomas had had an adequate grievance procedure they would have known about Jones’s sexual harassment. Kennedy did not act like a man who was taking Williams’s reprimand to heart. and find that Bakker & Thomas had constructive notice of Jones‘s sexual harassment. As a result. Kennedy towards Ms. the trial court incorectly found that it was impossible to know if the firm could have corrected the conduct of Mr. we request this Court reverse the trial court’s holding. Tripp should have taken more care with Jones’s complaint. 'having trouble getting dates.“ Furthurmore. Also. and Bakker & Thomas failed to take adequate remedial measures. and remand on the issue of damages. and in the very least answered the next day.that it only referred the author of the complaint back to the policy and procedure’s manual. this Court should overrule the lower court. During his repremand of Kennedy for sexually harrassing Jones. This Court has an opportunity to send a message to employers that sexual harassment in the workplace will not be tolerated. Williams was overheard asking Kennedy if he was. For all of these reasons. she was forced to resign. Kennedy further harrassed Jones the very next day. and it became obvious to her that her complaints were not being dealt with appropriately by Bakker & Thomas. Williams did not remove Kennedy from the project he was working on with Jones. Third. Jones did not afford the firm the chance to effect remedial measures.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful