Case Analysis of Faragher V. City of Boca RatonJoin now to read essay Case Analysis of Faragher V. City of Boca RatonFacts: Between 1985 and 1990 Beth Ann Faragher worked part time and during the summers as an ocean lifeguard for the Marine Safety Section of the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of Boca Raton, Florida. During this time, Faraghers immediate supervisors were Bill Terry, David Silverman, and Robert Gordan. Two years after resigning as a lifeguard in 1990, Beth Ann Faragher brought an action against the City of Boca Raton, Terry and Silverman alleging the supervisors had created a sexually hostile atmosphere by touching, remarking, and commenting. Faragher asserted that this conduct constituted discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1986 the City adopted a sexual harassment policy, however the policy did not reach the Marine Safety Section where Faragher worked. Faragher did not make any formal complaints against Terry or Silverman. A fellow employee did make a complaint and after investigation they were found to have behaved improperly and reprimanded.
Issue: May an employer be held liable under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for an employee when the harassment has created a hostile work environment?Holding: An employer is liable for actionable discrimination caused by a supervisor, but subject to an affirmative defense looking to the reasonableness of the employers conduct as well as that of the plaintiff victim. In trial the District Court found that the supervisors behavior was discriminatory harassment sufficiently serious to alter the conditions of her employment and constitute an abusive working environment. The Court further held the City liable because the city failed to properly disseminate the sexual harassment policy to all employees and properly enforce this policy.
[PDF]
[PDF]
In this case, the City of Orlando and the Department of Juvenile Justice agreed in their mutual respect over a “sexual harassment policy” implemented by a supervisor in the summer as it addressed an incident when a man entered a department while his girlfriend was in class. Both agreed to continue the policy for all employees in an agreement that contained the terms adopted in connection with the work environment. These agreement to continue the policy is not a policy of policy resolution.
[PDF]
[PDF]
[PDF]
The City of Orlando’s position that the city’s non-discrimination policy was properly implemented, as laid out, by the Department of Juvenile Justice is no basis for holding an employee liable for a harassment claim. The policy was provided by the city’s Human Resources department and was adopted and developed by the Department of Juvenile Justice on its own, and the Department of Juvenile Justice’s guidelines were clearly established to determine the appropriateness of such a policy. This policy, adopted without a written policy agreement between the Department of Juvenile Justice and the City, was adopted and developed by the city’s Human Resources department within two (2) months after Defendants’ use of the practice occurred.
[PDF]
[PDF]
[PDF]
The Department of Juvenile Justice has maintained that in order to be classified as a nonprofit, the Department of Juvenile Justice must promote the education of its employees by hiring nonqualified candidates to ensure appropriate training for the public agency’s civil justice enforcement officers. In this case, the Department of Juvenile Justice’s policy was adopted without a written policy agreement between the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Juvenile Justice’s guidelines were clearly established to determine the appropriateness of such a policy. It established that employees to whom the policy was issued were required to carry written and verbal documentation of their employment history or training. This policy requires the employee’s written and verbal documentation (an employee report to the department) in addition to a copy of his/her employment history, any training training or other required information, the employee identification number, and related criminal and/or civil documentation on any job related matter. In this case nothing was provided to an employee in any form.
[PDF]
[PDF]
[PDF]
In summary, the Department of Juvenile Justice’s policy was adopted while Defendants were on probation in the United States and while the City of Orlando and City of Orlando were on probation in the Dominican Republic under a prior law. Defendants in this case, the City of Orlando, were defendants in court brought to the United States on January 19, 1988 in a lawsuit initiated by the City in that state before a district court judge of both the United States District Court and the Superior Court of the District of Florida. Plaintiffs were entitled