Stoll vs Runyon Discussion.docx - Payton Flippo ACCT 261-25...

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

Payton Flippo October 29, 2018 ACCT 261-25 Ayers IRAC Analysis Stoll vs Runyon Issues: Issue 1- Coworkers were a witness to the sexual harassment that took place against the plaintiff. What actions should the witnessing coworkers take in response to the harassment? Issue 2- Supervising staff were aware of the behavior towards Stoll. What obligatory action should the supervisors take to address the harassment? Issue 3- After becoming aware of the harassment taking place, what actions should the Human Resources Director take? Issue 4- What advise should the in-house counsel give the plaintiff to do in response to the reported sexual harassment? Issue 5- The Sacramento Post Office failed to comply with the direction of the Office of Federal Operation made on March 18, 1996. Issue 6- The district dismissed Stoll’s pro se complaints because of the argument the Post Office made that Stoll was not entitled to equitable tolling. Rules: Rule 1- If a coworker witnessed the harassment, it would be strongly recommended reporting the incident to a supervisor or higher management. Rule2- The supervisor has the obligation to investigate the report and protect the employee from the harassment the best they can, regardless to how they were informed. They also must inform the Human Resources Director.
Rule 3- The Human Resources Director is obligated to address the situation by contacting and

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture