Stoll Discussion - IRAC Analysis Stoll vs Runyon Issues Issue 1 Coworkers witnessed continuous sexual harassment against Cynthia Stoll and other female

Stoll Discussion - IRAC Analysis Stoll vs Runyon Issues...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 4 pages.

IRAC AnalysisStoll vs. RunyonIssuesIssue 1Coworkers witnessed continuous sexual harassment against Cynthia Stoll and other female workers in the workplace. What course of action should be taken?Issue 2As a supervisor who has learned about the sexual harassment of Cynthia Stoll, what actions should be taken against these behaviors?Issue 3The sexual harassment of Cynthia Stoll was reported to Human Resources at the Sacramento Post Office. As Human Resources Director, what are the responsibilities for handling this situation?Issue 4As in house counsel of the Post Office, what suggestions could be provided for this situation?Issue 5The Sacramento Post Office did not comply with the Office of Federal Operationsruling on March 18, 1996. Issue 6The district court dismissed all of Stoll’s claims in her pro se complaint due to the Post Office’s assertion that she was not entitled to equitable tolling. RulesRule as to Issue 1A witness to sexual harassment in the workplace is strongly encouraged to report the behavior to a supervisor. Rule as to Issue 2
Supervisors are responsible for investigating allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace regardless of how they received information about the sexual harassment. Rule as to Issue 3The Human Resources Director is responsible for notifying the parties involved ofthe seriousness of the situation and investigating the allegations of sexual harassment. Rule as to Issue 4As in house counsel of the Sacramento Post Office, it would be advised to open an internal investigation into the allegation of sexual harassment. Rule as to Issue 5The Office of Federal Operations (OFO) “decision directed the Post Office to calculate Stoll's backpay within 60 days of its March 18 letter, and to pay her in full within 60 days of the calculation. The OFO letter further directed the Post Office to "afford EEO sensitivity training" to supervisor John Garrard. The Post Office complied with none of these remedial actions. Instead, it did nothing for

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture