Al A White Male Working In A Factory With A Black Coworker

Al A White Male Working In A Factory Called A Black Coworker Bill

Al, a white male working in a factory, called a black coworker Bill names such as “watermelon man” and “buckwheat.” The coworker told Al to stop. Al continued the name-calling and Bill called Al a “cracker” and a “honkey.” Later, while Al was talking to his supervisor, Bill twice hit Al in the face, causing significant medical expenses. Discuss Al and Bill’s claims against their employer.

Paper For Above instruction

The scenario presents two distinct legal claims against the employer from Al and Bill. To analyze their claims effectively, it is essential to consider principles of employment law, workplace harassment, and liability for employee conduct.

Al's claim against the employer likely revolves around hostile work environment harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To establish a claim, Al must demonstrate that the employer was aware of the harassment, that the harassment was severe or pervasive, and that the employer failed to take appropriate corrective action. In this case, Al's repeated name-calling by Bill, a coworker, constitutes racial harassment. If Al reported the harassment to supervisors or human resources and the employer failed to act, Al might claim that the employer either intentionally or negligently permitted a hostile work environment, making it liable for Bill's conduct (McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 1973). The employer's responsibility extends to protecting employees from racial harassment, especially when the employer is aware but neglects intervention.

Bill's claims against the employer could involve asserting that he was improperly disciplined or retaliated against after the incident or that the employer failed to maintain a safe work environment. Since Bill was physically assaulted by Al during the incident, he might also claim that the employer failed to take adequate measures to prevent violence or did not adequately discipline Al. However, given that the employer's liability hinges on whether they allowed a hostile environment or failed to act upon known harassment, Bill's claim might be weaker unless he alleges that the employer failed to respond appropriately.

Furthermore, the physical assault—Bill hitting Al—introduces potential claims for assault and battery. The employer could be held liable if it failed to prevent or respond to violence on the premises, especially if the employer knew or should have known about the potential for violence based on past conduct. An employer's duty includes ensuring employee safety and taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable violence (Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 1998).

In summary, Al has grounds to sue the employer for racial harassment and a hostile work environment if he can prove the employer was aware and failed to act. Bill's claim might involve defending against assault and seeking redress if he suffered harm from the physical attack. Ultimately, both claims involve evaluating the employer's knowledge, response, and the foreseeability of violence.

References

• Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
• McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
• EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999).
• Barber v. Society of Lloyd's, 118 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 1997).
• Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013).
• Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993).
• Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).
• Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 555 U.S. 271 (2009).
• Leibovitz v. New York City Transit Authority, 205 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2000).
• Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, 480 U.S. 616 (1987).