Question

In Duncan v. General Motors sexual discrimination case based on maintaining a “hostile work place environment”, the majority of the appeals judges believed the facts were not significant or egregious enough to find that the work place was hostile.

(A) Do you believe that the judges should have substituted their own opinions on how serious Duncan’s conduct in place of the jury’s opinion which was based on hearing the direct testimony and evidence? Explain your answer.

(B) Do you think the courts have set a clear and understandable standard and definition of just what constitutes a “hostile work place environment”? Specifically explain your answer.

(C) How could the law be changed to create less uncertainty as to what conduct is sufficient to constitute a “hostile work place environment?

Answer 1

a) case is more effectie because jury is supportive to duncan she has all the rights to fight against harrasement in work place by his superior he repeatedly touched her judges has not set their opinon because it was serious offense with all the proof if it continues it will affect badly on the whole companies environment and also builds a type of culture in the country.

b)yes,court have set clear and understandable standard for hostile work environment,because it doesnt matter in work environment the harrsement is severe, extreme or less but the word matters ie harresement that to fpr women employees,work ethics sholud be proper and accepteble and encouraged one then only the word growth will come

c)law has to change in companies environment the companies rules and regulaion should be like one has to verify other work immediatly,once the complaint is registered from employees they have to take immediate action 1.each and every company should create women harrasement cell and website to discuss register and take action