IRAC Stoll vs. Runyon.docx - ACCT-261-1 Ayers IRAC Analysis...

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

ACCT-261-1 Ayers IRAC Analysis Stoll vs. Runyon Discussion Issues Issue 1 Coworkers witnessed continuous sexual harassment against Stoll. What course of action should be taken? Issue 2 As a supervisor who has been told of the sexual harassment toward Stoll, what actions should be taken? Issue 3 As the Human Resource Director having learned about the situation, what actions should I take? Issue 4 As in-house counsel of the Post Office, what advice could be given for this situation? Issue 5 The Sacramento Post Office did not comply with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) ruling of March 18, 1996. Issue 6 The district court dismissed Stoll’s claims in her pro se complaint due to the Post Office’s claim that she was not entitled to equitable tolling. Rules Rule as to Issue 1 Witnesses of sexual harassment in the work place are encouraged to report the behavior. Rule as to Issue 2 Supervisors are charged with investigating sexual harassment allegations, no matter how the information is received.
Rule as to Issue 3 The HR Director is responsible for notifying involved parties of the seriousness of the situation and the internal investigation of sexual harassment allegations. Rule as to Issue 4 As in-house counsel the prudent thing to do is to open an internal investigation of the sexual harassment allegations.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture