Please Complete The IRAC Assignment Below And Upload Your Re

Please Complete The Irac Assignment Below Upload Your Response In A W

Please complete the IRAC assignment below. Upload your response in a word document before Friday. There are 3 IRACs in this assignment. You do NOT have a peer review. The assignment is worth 15 points and is due on Friday.

Facts JB Interiors, LLC specializes in interior design and interior decorating for residential and commercial properties in the Pacific Northwest. The company began as a family business in 1972. Today, it retains its headquarters in Issaquah, Washington but has grown to over 150 employees, including support staff. The current executive management team at JB Interiors comprises 8 men and 6 women, some of whom are direct descendants of the original founders. Although they are politically conservative as a group, they and their employees believe the team to be fairly progressive when it comes to creating a healthy workplace that respects employee rights and work-life balance.

In that regard, in early 2019 the team contracted with Internet Life Balance, Inc.to provide all employees a technology that allows work-time access to the Internet that is completely free of employer monitoring. This “sandbox†technology creates an isolated secure pathway to the Internet from an icon on employer desktops. Here, employees can check personal email, social media and the like. Because it is isolated, the technology also ensures that the company’s computer system will not be compromised by security threats and viruses. Internet Life Balance thus provides JB Interiors with both a security solution and a way to honor employees’ personal privacy while at work.

Employees are encouraged to create community with each other by using Internet sites such as Instagram and Facebook in ways that allow them to connect with work colleagues. For example, many employees are “friends†on Facebook and/or follow each other in Instagram. Under its current technology use policy, all JB Interior employees are required to use Internet Life Balance for such personal Internet use while on site. Laptops and handheld devices are restricted from such use and, with the exception of cell phone calls and necessary text messaging, discouraged from workplace usage all together. Work related Internet usage such as company email is excepted.

Work-related Internet usage occurs via Microsoft Outlook for email and Internet Explorer, both subject to employer monitoring for possible misuse and protection of JB Interiors’ intellectual property. With the exception of the executive management team, all employees at JB Interiors work in open space on desktops that are not assigned to any particular individual. Employees simply select a computer station, typically at the beginning of the workday. Occasionally employees will select the same station out of habit, but generally the open space policy facilitates employee relationships by encouraging mingling and keeps the workplace from becoming routine. In June of 2019, a small group of 6 employees who identify as LGBTQ approached the executive management team with a request that the company’s employee handbook be updated to recognize LGBTQ status as protected for purposes of gender discrimination including gender identification and sexual orientation.

The current employee handbook states that gender discrimination of any kind, including sexual harassment, will not be tolerated and includes a procedure for reporting incidents that is compliant with federal and state employment law. JB Interiors has not, however, provided employee training about the policy since 2010. There have been no incidents of reporting harassment of any kind since 2008. When other employees found out about the change request, tension between camps in favor and against grew. Until recently the status of the LGBTQ employee requesters was not discussed openly at work.

Although they assumed they would have the support of their colleagues, a group of five employees (the “objectorsâ€) began a subversive campaign against their LGBTQ peers. Using the private Internet access provided by Internet Life Balance, the objectors began posting comments on Facebook critiquing the request and in some cases commenting disparagingly about their LGBTQ co-workers’ gender identities and sexual orientation. The objectors used Facebook to call for unity against their LGBTQ co-workers and to take action to make work “so miserable†for them that they would be forced to quit. Most of the employees and five of the executive management team were “friends†on Facebook and had full access to all the derogatory posts.

Over a period of 45 days, Facebook analytics reveal that 4 of the 5 managers were online on Facebook over 30 times per user (based on registered logins). However, it is not confirmed if any viewed the objectors’ posts as there was no confirmed “likes†by management of the comments. Employee use of Facebook over that same period, on the contrary, reveals that at least 10 employee co-workers “liked†at least three of the objector comments. By September, 3 of the LGBTQ employees quit their jobs. These three were support staff.

When they quit, they did not explicitly inform the executive manager in charge of HR about their reasons for quitting. However, they did each state in their exit interview with this HR manager that the workplace environment had become “uncomfortable and unsupportiveâ€. The HR manager is one of the executive “friends†on Facebook who was online during the 45 day window noted previously. It is not clear whether he saw the Facebook campaign of the objectors or not. The objectors continued their campaign on Facebook from work stations at JB Interiors until early November 2019 when they were served at work a summons and complaint by the six LGBTQ employee targets.

The complaint also named the company and the executive management team as defendants. Simultaneously, the EEOC filed suit against the company for gender discrimination under Title VII. The executive management team immediately suspended the five objectors until an internal investigation could be conducted. All employee access to Internet Life Balance was shut down. At this point, no action had been taken at all regarding the original request made some 5 month prior to modify the employee handbook to include LGBTQ status as a protected class.

The task was delegated to the HR manager, but he had been consumed with other projects and when asked stated that he simply had not yet had time to get started on consideration of the request or even time to talk to company counsel about it. The complaint filed by the LGBTQ employees alleges claims against the five objectors for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It alleges claims against the company and the executive management team based on respondeat superior for the actions of the objectors; negligent supervision; and sexual harassment. The objectors settled their cases with the plaintiffs confidentially. You are not to be concerned with analyzing this case.

However, the case against JB Interiors and the executive management team is proceeding, and as of today the Company has filed a motion to dismiss all three claims alleging that the plaintiffs have not presented enough evidence to support legal causes of action. You are the judge hearing this motion . Please provide an IRAC analysis for each claim (respondeat superior, negligent supervision and sexual harassment) against the Company. Use the facts presented here as you deem relevant to decide if you will grant the Company’s motion, or allow the plaintiffs’ case to proceed to trial.

Paper For Above instruction

The legal analysis of the claims against JB Interiors regarding respondeat superior, negligent supervision, and sexual harassment requires a careful application of employment law principles, evidence standards, and the facts presented in this case. The motion to dismiss filed by the company challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ evidence to establish each of these causes of action. This paper conducts an IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) analysis for each claim, considering the relevant legal tests and factual context.

Respondeat Superior

The doctrine of respondeat superior holds employers vicariously liable for tortious acts committed by their employees within the scope of employment. To establish liability, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the employee’s wrongful act occurred during the course of employment and was related to their job duties. In this case, the objectors, who are employees of JB Interiors, engaged in online postings disparaging their LGBTQ coworkers using internet access provided by the employer. The question is whether the posts fall within the scope of employment or are outside of it, thus affecting employer liability.

Typically, for an act to fall within the scope of employment, it must be motivated by a purpose to serve the employer’s interests or occur during working hours and within the workplace or related context. While the objectors used company-provided internet access, the postings themselves were personal in nature, targeting colleagues based on their sexual orientation. There is evidence that the objectors continued their campaign from workstations, implying some connection to the workplace environment. However, there is no evidence they acted upon instructions or during work hours specifically, nor that their actions furthered company interests.

Furthermore, courts often distinguish between actions taken within the scope of employment and those clearly outside, especially if the conduct constitutes misconduct or abuse of employer resources. The use of company internet to post disparaging comments based on personal beliefs does not appear to serve JB Interiors’ business interests and arguably was outside the scope of employment. Given the lack of evidence showing that the postings were committed within employment duties or during work hours with employer approval, the plaintiff’s claim under respondeat superior appears weak. Therefore, the motion to dismiss on this basis should be granted, as the plaintiffs have not sufficiently demonstrated that the employer is liable for these acts.

Negligent Supervision

Negligent supervision claims require showing that the employer failed to oversee or control employee conduct, resulting in harm to others. The plaintiff must establish that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity to cause harm and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. In this case, the allegations center on the company’s prior inaction regarding the LGBTQ employees’ request for protected status and the subsequent online campaign.

Evidence indicates that the company had not provided updated training or guidance since 2010 and had not addressed the employees’ request for recognition of LGBTQ protections for several months. The executive management’s inaction, despite awareness of internal tensions and the online activity, might support a negligent supervision claim. Moreover, the HR manager, who was responsible for overseeing employee conduct, had been preoccupied and had not engaged with counsel or taken steps to remedy the hostile environment before the employees’ departure.

However, a key factor is whether the employer’s failure to supervise or intervene was unreasonable under the circumstances and whether such negligence caused the harm. The ongoing online harassment, coupled with the failure to update policy or address known tensions, could establish a duty that was breached. Nevertheless, since the company promptly suspended the objectors once aware of the complaint and took internal investigative steps, a court might find that the employer acted reasonably once the misconduct was identified.

Given the evidence, the plaintiffs’ claim for negligent supervision seems to have merit but may require further factual development to establish causation. The motion to dismiss should be denied at this stage, allowing the case to proceed to trial where evidence of prior knowledge, supervision failures, and causal connection can be fully examined.

Sexual Harassment

Under Title VII and analogous state laws, sexual harassment includes unwelcome conduct based on sex that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. The allegations concern the online campaign targeting LGBTQ employees, with derogatory comments and calls for collective action to make work “miserable” for them.

The question is whether this conduct constitutes sexual harassment under legal standards. Courts review whether the conduct was unwelcome, based on sex, and whether it was severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms and conditions of employment. The conduct described involves disparaging comments on social media emphasizing gender identity and sexual orientation, which is explicitly connected to sex or gender discrimination.

Additionally, the hostile environment must be considered from the perspective of the employees affected. The fact that three LGBTQ employees quit citing an “uncomfortable and unsupportive” environment, coupled with the derogatory online campaign, suggests that the conduct was severe and pervasive enough to impact their work lives. While the company acted to suspend the objectors once aware of the complaint, the initial failure to prevent or address the online harassment could be viewed as negligence contributing to the hostile environment.

Thus, the claim of sexual harassment appears to have sufficient factual basis to survive a motion to dismiss, as the conduct was tied to sex-based characteristics and negatively affected the targeted employees’ work conditions. The plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed to trial to fully establish the extent and impact of the harassment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the motion to dismiss the claims alleging respondeat superior and sexual harassment should be denied based on the sufficiency of the allegations and the facts, which support the plausibility of these claims. Conversely, the claim for negligent supervision is somewhat weaker but also warrants allowing it to proceed, given the factual context. Therefore, the court should deny the defendant company’s motion in part and allow the cases against JB Interiors to proceed to trial for further evidentiary development.

References

• Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).
• Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
• McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
• Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
• Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
• Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
• Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993).
• Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
• Williams v. General Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 1999).
• Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (2013).