1.) The best way for an HR manager to prevent an EEOC claims filed against the organization is to encourage the employees to create a work culture and environment that promotes diversity, deters employment discrimination, and sexual harassment. The HR manager should implement serious guidelines to prevent any form of discrimination inside the place of work. It is imperative to develop training programs that promotes job satisfaction and improves the quality of performance. The employer should increase diversity awareness to prevent potential offensive behavior among the employees.
2.) (1) Hannah cannot be forced to submit her claim to arbitration because the law requires any victim of sexual harassment to immediately file a case before the EEOC to protect individual rights. The union’s decision to submit the case for arbitration is mistaken since violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the ground of race, sex, nationality, religious beliefs or gender during employment cannot be amicably settled by the parties. Under the law, the victim has to immediately report the incident to the employer to safeguard the workplace from any type of harassment that may cause prejudicial treatment to the victim. Setting the minimum level of sexual harassing conduct is a difficult task that can only be determined depending on how each incident is reported to the employer.
(2) It shall be the duty of the employer to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct the sexually harassing conduct of the employee and to provide preventive measures to avoid any harm or damage to the employee resulting from sexual harassment. Failure of the company to secure the work place will make liable for intentional tort (Cross and Miller, 2011).
(3) Yes, I will still advice Hannah to undergo litigation. On the part of the employer, it will avoid any charges for the negligent and intentional torts since sexual harassment cases defined under Title IV falls within the definition of intentional conduct referring to the “intent” that the employer is completely aware of the desired result and the probability of the incidence will occur but did not do anything about it (Meiners, Ringleb, and Edwards, 2009).
3.) (1) The issues are: 1.) Racial discrimination cannot be a subject of a settlement agreement in mediation proceedings; 2.) the employer must be held liable for failure of the supervisors to prevent the discrimination in the work place by taking corrective action; and 3.) the testimony of the lawyers, the mediator and the employer must not be admitted in court as evidence because it is a wanton disregard of the rights of Andrew under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits any discrimination on the basis of race, sex, nationality, religious beliefs or gender during employment (EEOC.gov).
(2) Yes, Andrew will succeed in all probability since he suffered harm or damage from the offensive behavior within the work environment that was tolerated by the employer. The law seeks to penalize the employer for intentional tort for not taking preventive measures to secure the place of work.
(3) The case should be decided in favor of Andrew. The law provides that the employer shall be liable for damages upon presentation of evidence showing two elements: 1.) The employer failed to exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct the discriminating behavior of their employees; and failure to carry out preventive measures within the work place to preclude harm or damage (Meiners et al., 2009). Under the principle of vicarious liability, the employer is accountable to a victimized employee for any action that transpired in hostile environment done by the immediate superiors such as in the case of Andrew.
4.) Dorothy W. alleged that she deposited $200,000 in the Citizens Bank and opened two certificates of deposit, each for $100,000. Several months later Dorothy sued the bank because she discovered that the statements showed only one CD for $100,000. The bank denied that they ever received the additional $100,000. The court ordered mediation, and the parties signed a mediation agreement with a confidentiality clause. During mediation Dorothy was offered $25,000 to settle the case. Dorothy refused the offer and called the local newspaper which ran an article about the matter. The bank then requested a dismissal of the case in their favor based on the breach of the confidentiality agreement.
The request of the bank should be denied since the issue in this case is that Dorothy suffered damage of $100,000 when the bank failed to reflect her money in the certificate of deposit. Hence, the negligence of the bank and failure to return the full amount despite the mediation agreement will not absolve its liability to Dorothy.
The benefits of confidentiality in the mediation process are: 1.) confidentiality will increase the willingness of the parties to undergo an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process; and the confidentiality will enhance the efficiency of the ADR process (Currier and Eimermann, 2009).
Cross, F. B., and Miller, R. L. (2011). The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases.
Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Currier, K.A. and Eimermann, T. E. (2009). Introduction to Paralegal Studies: A Critical
Thinking Approach. New York: Aspen Publishers.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Web. August 30, 2013 from,
Meiners, R.E., Ringleb, A.H. and Edwards, F.L. (2009). The Legal Environment of Business,
11th ed. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.