Advanced legal writing. Case about hostile work environment and sexual harassment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

STATEMENT OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

ARGUMENT
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD REVERSE THE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF MAINE, BECAUSE TITLE VII PROHIBITS CREATING A HOSTILE WORK ENVIROMENT ON THE BASES OF THE SEVERITY AND PERVASIVENESS OF THE CONDUCT OF MR. CARSON.
A. The Court should reverse the partial summary judgment, because Mr. Carson’s actions were threatening and humiliating, because the appellant expressed his sexual desire for her, called her “Luscious Lisa,” and touched her on several occasions created an objective hostile workplace environment sufficiently severe to alter the condition of the victim’s employment.
1. An hostile workplace harassment is objectively hostile when the actions of touching a co-worker are severe enough to alter the term of the employment.
2. Comments that are severe enough to alter the work place create a hostile workplace environment.
3. Innuendos create an uncomfortable work environment because are an unwelcome sexual invitation.
B. The Court of Appeals should reverse the partial Summary Judgment, because the appellant was the object of pervasive conduct that permeated the workplace environment, because Mr. Carson frequent actions, touching her hips and making remarks or calling her with an inappropriate nick name several times altered the condition of the victim’s work environment.
1. Frequency can be created by a serial of discriminatory animus towards a person.
2. The duration of sexual remarks, innuendoes, ridicule, and intimidation can occur “over a series of days or perhaps years” may be sufficient, in order to have a hostile workplace environment.

CONCLUSION