DUE TODAY 10/03/17 BY 17:00!!!
1. Using the Internet, research the legal case that Susan Simpson filed against the Ohio Reformatory for Women.
3. . .
1. The court’s reasoning seems to blend the two together. On one hand, the court began its opinion by noting that the lower court (the Claims Court) ruled in favor of the defendant-employer on plaintiff’s “claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision, and constructive discharge.” But then the court goes on to consider whether the Supreme Court’s test of vicarious liability for worker-to-worker sexual harassment was properly applied by the lower court to this case, where the harassment was not sexual in nature.
2. Then both vicarious liability and negligent conduct by the employer are irrelevant, since the supervisor stands in the shoes of the organization and acts on its behalf, even when that supervisor acts wrongly.
3. This is open to discussion. Could jurors disagree on this point? Should it matter that the plaintiff was an overly sensitive person?
4. Probably not. The court seems to accept the lower court’s decision to apply the Supreme Court’s test, and then ends up agreeing with the trial judge’s determination that the plaintiff failed to carry her burden.
5. Views may differ, depending one experience, point of view, gender, etc.