Reference no: EM13673222

1. Teddy's Supplies' CEO has asked you to advise him on the facts of the case and your opinion of their potential liability. Write a memo to him that states your view of whether the company is exposed to liability on all issues you feel are in play. Include in your memo any laws that apply and any precedent cases either for or against Teddy's case that impact liability. Include your opinion of the "worst case" of damages the company may have to pay to Virginia.
2. The NJ Human Right commission found that Pollard was the victim of sexual harassment and disparate treatment. Please answer these questions:
A. Provide the most current definition of "sexual harassment," including a definition of quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment. Name an appellate court case in which an employer was found liable for either quid pro quo or hostile environment sexual harassment. Describe the facts of the case and the decision the court came to in the case. Include the citation to the case and a link to it online. Would the case apply to Pollard's case? Why or why not? Would you want to use this case in Teddy's favor or Pollard s favor?
B. Explain which form of sexual harassment you suspect the NJ Human Rights commission found Virginia had been a victim of and why you feel that is the case. Provide law or a case to support your position. If you feel Pollard was not a victim of harassment in this case, explain why you feel that way, and provide law or a case to support your position.
C. Explain what defenses to sexual harassment Teddy's had in this case. (Include the name and citation of at least two federal or state sexual harassment cases that provide precedent support to your defense statement.)
D. What is disparate treatment and why do you think the Human Rights commission found it had occurred? Do you agree with this decision?
3. The CEO asks you to review the sexual harassment policy currently in place that Virginia signed. He wants you to provide him with suggestions for changes to it. Review the policy and give three recommendations for changes, enhancements, and ideas for making the policy stronger. Include your reasons for these suggestions. If you find information online for making these changes, include citations and/or links to that information. Explain how your suggestions may have protected Teddy's in this case. Support these recommendations with current case law.
4. How would Pollard's case be impacted if her replacement had been a female? Would her case be different? Would her damages be different? Explain your answer