Faragher V. Helenrth Case

1. A) “an employer is liable if it knew or should have known of the misconduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action” (EEOC, 1999). B) “An employer is subject to vicarious liability for unlawful harassment if the harassment was committed by “a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee” (EEOC, 1999). C) “If an employer cannot prove that it discharged its duty of reasonable care and that the employee unreasonably failed to avoid the harm, the employer will be liable” (EEOC, 1999).

2. The cases Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth apply to the current case because of many reasons. In Ellerth, “the Court concluded that there was no tangible
Workplaces that rely on customer service / client satisfaction (EEOC, 2016) is one risk factor for harassment in this case because Ms. Hall reported that “uninvited and offensive touching typically occurs while they were on assignments in bars” and trying to get musicians and other talents to sign with the agency. In addition, Mr. Helsel’s remarks about claiming to have sexual relations with Ms. Hall and Ms. Ament was usually done in an attempt to impress the clients. In this setting, Ms. Hall and Ms. Ament, like many in similar situations, may tolerate the harassment because their commissions and their jobs were on the line. Having a homogenous workforce is another risk factor for harassment (EEOC, 2016). Only 20% of Take 2 Talent’s employees were women and the majority of them did not hold upper-level jobs. “Sexual assault of women is more likely to occur in workplaces that have primarily male employees” (EEOC, 2016) and this was proven true in this case. Workers who are not comfortable around others around them are also less likely to speak out, just like how Ms. Hall did not want to report the harassment to Mr. Pearson. Isolated workplaces is another risk factor for harassment (EEOC, 2016). Ms. Hall and Mr. Helsel typically worked far away from other employees. Not only were they physically isolated from others, Mr. Helsel had easy access to Ms. Hall and generally would have few witnesses to the harassments, leaving Ms. Hall more vulnerable to his