draft for resech #2 - Legal Research and Writing Assignment...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Legal Research and Writing Assignment Chelsea Brown Section 704a of Title VII protects employees from retaliation by their employers for opposing unlawful employment practices as defined under Section 703A. See Title VII § 704 Michael Johnson filed a Title VII retaliation claim against Chevy’s based on his July 15 suspension after he rejected his employer Mrs. Newman’s sexual advances. The question is whether or not Johnson engaged in protected activity under Title VII when he rejected Newman’s sexual advances. However this is not a simple question. There are two issues to be addressed. The first issue is what constitutes sexual advances and the second is whether Johnson engaged in protected activity through his action of opposing Newman’s sexual advances. According to section 704A of Title VII, retaliation for opposing any practice made unlawful by section 703a of Title VII is prohibited. “Making a change, testifying, assisting or participating in any investigatory proceeding or hearing regarding Title VII violations are actions that are considered protected activity.” Zelinski v. Pa. State Police, 108 Fed. Appx. 700, 3 (3d Cir. Pa. 2004) Actions that are protected under Title VII include formal charges of discrimination as well as informal protests of discriminatory employment practices. Title VII § 704 Some of these include making “complaints to managers, writing critical letters to customers, protests against discrimination by the industry or by society in general and expressing support of coworkers who filed formal charges.” Fantini v. Salem State College, 557 F.3d 22, 9 (1st Cir. Mass. 2009) The protected activity in question in Johnson’s case relates to his rejection of Newman’s sexual advances. It is important to address the precedents that tie into what is considered sexual advances.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
After Johnson began working for Newman, he started to become uncomfortable with Newman’s behavior. Over time, Newman began greeting Johnson with phases such as “Hey hot stuff!” and “how are you doing sexy”. After Newman tried various times to ask Johnson out to dinner, Newman responded, “…don’t make this any harder than it needs to be”. At this point Johnson was completely fed up with Newman’s behavior and felt that Newman was doing was breaking the sexual harassment policy. Johnson threatened to lodge a complaint with the district manager in accordance with Chevy’s Sexual harassment policy. The policy states that sexual harassment is considered “unwelcome advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment. .” Johnson felt that his employer was making sexual advances that broke the sexual harassment policy. However, in order to better understand what constitutes a sexual advance, we need to consult the courts. The court provides us with some examples of sexual advances include calling an employee voluptuous, well endowed, sniffing her perfume and hugging her 3 times. See Fantini v. Salem State
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 7

draft for resech #2 - Legal Research and Writing Assignment...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online