Every Law system has many `black holes`` in which many facts swap in. However, we are learning how to respect our Constitution and therefore, I would like to present my point of view on this case.
In the question was the Clarence supervisor in the Big Car Motion company, I would say yes, having all the facts in mind. Law sees supervisor as `` An individual who is authorized to direct another employee’s day-to-day work activities qualifies as his or her supervisor even if that individual does not have the authority to undertake or recommend tangible job decisions.``. Plaintiff` s counsel said that Clarence had right to guide team members, ability to assign members for various task, and to choose whether or not someone will get that task or not. Therefore, we have strong fact that Clarence was a supervisor. But, also, plaintiff` counsel said: `` Ms. Daggett was once told by a senior supervisor that she would be transferred to Clarence’s if he (Clarence) requested it, saying “What Clarence wants, Clarence gets.”. This certainly proofs that Clarence was not Darcy`s supervisor, and therefore he could not affect her day on the work that much.
Further, there is not enough proofs that Ms. Darcy did not enjoy Clarence`s affection for months, and then after months, she complained.
Furthermore, we have to be realistic and to follow the Constitution and the Law. Thus, we cannot be sensitive and have affection if the story sounds real. We have to look at the facts and to contrast them with the Constitution.
Plaintiff is claiming that Clarence`s ``dirty talk`` and trying to kiss Darcy is offensive and that this means sexual harassment. In addition, plaintiff claims that `` when Ms. Darcy told other woman at work, she started laughing, saying that is how Clarence acts. ``
Having this in mind, I would say that Clarence is not a threat to anyone in sexual harassment meaning, as other woman in work was familiar with his attitude and was not affected by it; she founded it funny and amusing. In addition, there is no proof that this behavior was on a random and daily basis, as there is no chance that normal person, who can see harassment, stay on that job and suffer for months, before saying anything to HR.
It is true that his attitude and behavior is unacceptable and that this company should do something about it, but about sexual harassment I do not see him guilty.
What is unacceptable is Ms. Darcy`s moving to another station, sordid and cold, after she raised claim to HR. In that picture, yes, there was hostile workplace environment for Ms. Darcy, because it is constitutionally intolerable that one worker has better environment form another one, only because she claimed something against company indirectly. In addition, 300 feet distance between Ms. Darcy and Clarence was not respected and therefore I thing Jury had every right to accept this case in order to find out more about this claim.
Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer Responsibility forUnlawful Harassment by Supervisors. (n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2013,
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998). (n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2013,