Disparate Treatment
2c) Disparate treatment in the text states “treating employees of one race or sex differently from employees of another race or sex. It results from unlawful discrimination when an individual is treated less favorably than other employees because of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex”.
Pollard was a victim of disparate treatment because she was the only woman employee in her department. Pollard, was treated differently by her supervisor Mr. King when he suggested she do as the sign said, which, was a sexual act, when he stated to her to “grow a set of balls, which was a sexual statement. Mr. King also allowed the other department employees, six males, to treat Pollard in the same hostile manner. Pollard was subjected to an obscure amount of office pranks, sexual contact such as the spanking.
2D) The defenses to a sexual harassment policy are that of the text which states 1) BFOQ-A bona fide--occupational qualification based on sex, religion or national origin that is necessary for the operation of business. 2) Seniority or merit systems-- the systems must apply to all employees, divisions cannot be set-up to discriminate against particular races or groups, and origins of the systems to be set up as to discriminate, system must be maintained for seniority and merit purposes and not to perpetuate racial discrimination. 3) Aptitude--all test must be validated, job related, not to eliminate races, validate by employees for correlation between test scores and job performance 4) Misconduct—defense to a valid reason for termination or different treatment, misconduct by employee discovered after termination. I don’t believe that the sexual harassment policy provides a defense to Teddy’s in this case because Pollard was qualified to do her job. For the position that Polllad there was no necessity for a specific sex, religion or national origin. The criteria for Seniority or merit systems are not valid in this case. There was no aptitude test needed
Pollard was a victim of disparate treatment because she was the only woman employee in her department. Pollard, was treated differently by her supervisor Mr. King when he suggested she do as the sign said, which, was a sexual act, when he stated to her to “grow a set of balls, which was a sexual statement. Mr. King also allowed the other department employees, six males, to treat Pollard in the same hostile manner. Pollard was subjected to an obscure amount of office pranks, sexual contact such as the spanking.
2D) The defenses to a sexual harassment policy are that of the text which states 1) BFOQ-A bona fide--occupational qualification based on sex, religion or national origin that is necessary for the operation of business. 2) Seniority or merit systems-- the systems must apply to all employees, divisions cannot be set-up to discriminate against particular races or groups, and origins of the systems to be set up as to discriminate, system must be maintained for seniority and merit purposes and not to perpetuate racial discrimination. 3) Aptitude--all test must be validated, job related, not to eliminate races, validate by employees for correlation between test scores and job performance 4) Misconduct—defense to a valid reason for termination or different treatment, misconduct by employee discovered after termination. I don’t believe that the sexual harassment policy provides a defense to Teddy’s in this case because Pollard was qualified to do her job. For the position that Polllad there was no necessity for a specific sex, religion or national origin. The criteria for Seniority or merit systems are not valid in this case. There was no aptitude test needed