Reference no: EM131074777

Case : "Sexual Orientation Incidents: Bootstrapping Discrimination", - you will need to review federal and state laws to decide how to answer these questions. For federal laws, google "Executive Orders" and for state law, google, "New York Statutes or New York State Human Rights Laws", "Washington Statutes", and "Oregon statutes". You may need to refine your searches to get the best data. Please include a reference section with your sourcces in MLA 7th edition format.

INCIDENT
Sexual Orientation Incidents: Bootstrapping Discrimination

1. James Smith, an openly gay man, was employed as a postal worker in Farmingdale, New York for approximately 12 years. He repeatedly received satisfactory to excellent perform¬ance evaluations. Smith's sexual orientation was known to his co-workers, who repeatedly assaulted him with sexually derogatory comments and names. He was exposed to frequent threats, obscenities, and nasty letters that referred to his homosexuality. Notes were placed on the wall in the employees' bathroom with Smith's name and the name of celebrities who had died of AIDS. Pornographic photographs were taped to his work area, male dolls were in his vehicle, and copies of Playgirl magazine were sent to his home. After suffering a heart attack, Mr. Smith resigned from his position. He filed a lawsuit against the post office charging sex discrimination. Mr. Smith argued in his petition that the abuse he endured because of his sexual orientation was so severe that he ultimately suffered a heart attack. .

-2. John Ortega was employed for five years by Mexicana, Inc., which operates a chain of restaurants in Washington and Oregon. Ortega first worked as a host and then became a food server in one of the Washington restaurants. Throughout his employment with Mexicana, Ortega was subjected to a relentless campaign of insults, name calling, and vulgarities. Ortega had complained to his general manager and assistant manager of the restaurant where he worked, but the abuse did not cease. Male co-workers and one of his supervisors referred to Ortega as a "she" or "her" constantly. He was mocked for walking like a woman, holding a tray like a -woman, and having effeminate gestures. Ortega was called sexually derogatory names, such as "faggot" and "female whore."

Pranks were played on him as well. One such incident ended in a fight between Ortega and a co-worker. Ortega and the co-worker were then called into a meeting with Mexicana's human resources director. The director told Ortega to report any further harassment to the area manager, who would address the issue. The human resources director also promised to do spot checks herself over a two-week period to ensure that the harassment stopped. Mexicana had a dearly stated policy against harassment which stated: "An employee who believes that he or she has been harassed by a co-worker, supervisor, or anyone acting on behalf of the company should immediately report the facts of the incident to the Mexicana EEO officer at the corporate office or to the area manager responsible for the restaurant" The human resources director made one check and Ortega told her that conditions were improving. However, about two weeks later Ortega got into a heated argument with his assistant manager and walked off the job. He was subsequently fired for leaving work in the middle of a shift. A month later, Ortega filed a complaint with the EEOC. Thereafter, he initiated a lawsuit charging he was harassed because of his sex.

3. Delilah Deacon filed a lawsuit against her employer, Hairlocks Preferred in New York City, accusing them of unlawful discrimination because of her sex, sex stereotyping, and/ or sexual orientation. Delilah, a lesbian, was employed as a hair assistant at Hairlocks Preferred, a prestigious, high-end hair salon known for its innovative haircutting techniques. Delilah had wanted to move into one of the high-paying haircutting positions
after working as an assistant for several months. Hairlocks Preferred had a rigorous training program that had to be completed before anyone could advance to cutting clients' hair. Only about 10-15 percent of the total number of assistants at the salon completed the difficult and challenging training program. It took successful candidates at least two or three years to complete the training. In addition to its reputation for innovative haircuts, Hairlocks Preferred was known for hiring employees who embodied many different lifestyles and sexual orientations, including a female-to-male transsexual, an openly bisexual man, and both male and female gay employees. It was not uncommon for employees to engage in sexually charged banter in the workplace.

Deacon enrolled tin the training program, but according to Hairlocks Preferred, her performance was erratic both in the training program and in her duties as a hair assistant. One of the senior stylists indicated that Deacon was frequently unavailable when needed to assist and that she had been rude to clients or rough with their hair. Other stylists complained she was hostile and disrespectful. Her performance in the basic cutting class was rated inadequate to advance to the next level. Deacon argued that her behavior was a result of the harassment she suffered because of her sexual orientation and gender. .While she indicated she had not been at all reticent about her lesbianism while working at the salon, Deacon alleged that on several occasions the owner had told her that females rarely became hair stylists because clients preferred men. Deacon also charged that a range of derogatory comments were hurled at her while she worked at Hairlocks. She was often referred to as "Donald" instead of Delilah, called a "dyke," and was once told by a co-worker that she needed to have sex with a man. In her lawsuit, Deacon alleged the owner of Hairlocks, who was a pre-surgery male-to-female trans¬sexual, informed her that she was being fired because of the way she looked and wore her hair. Hairlocks Preferred countered that she had been fired because of her poor performance.

QUESTIONS

1. What issue(s) must the court decide in each case? What laws, if any, have been violated?

2. If you were the judge, how would you rule? Why?

3. Sexual orientation in the workplace is an increasingly important HR issue. How should companies manage this issue?