Question

Marianne accepts a job of administrative assistant in an automobile repair shop. She is constantly subjected to sexual comments and jokes from her male coworkers. Many of them also prominently display sexually explicit posters at their work stations. Which of the following statements is true about Marianne's legal rights in this scenario?

A) Her employer is immune from sexual harassment claims because her co-workers are the ones making sexual comments and displaying the posters.
B) Marianne may sue her co-workers based on the theory of quid pro quo harassment.
C) Unless Marianne can prove that she was physically harassed, she has no evidence of the harassment such that she could proceed with a lawsuit.
D) Marianne may file a cause of action based on hostile work environment.

Answer 1

D) Marianne may file a cause of action based on hostile work environment.

In this scenario, Marianne may have grounds to file a lawsuit based on a hostile work environment. Hostile work environment harassment occurs when unwelcome conduct based on sex or other protected characteristics creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. In this case, the sexually explicit comments, jokes, and posters contribute to a hostile work environment. It's important for employees to be protected from such behavior, even if it comes from coworkers rather than direct supervisors or employers.

Answer 2

Marianne could file a claim based on a hostile work environment, given the repeated sexual comments and displays of explicit material by coworkers, which does not require physical harassment or quid pro quo elements to be proven.

Step-by-step explanation:

Marianne's legal rights in this scenario would likely support a cause of action based on a hostile work environment. Sexual harassment doesn't have to be physical or romantic in nature; it can take the form of verbal comments, jokes, and the display of sexually explicit material that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

In this case, the constant sexual comments and the sexually explicit posters displayed by her male coworkers could constitute such an environment.

While her employer is not automatically immune from harassment claims, the theory of quid pro quo harassment would not apply here unless Marianne was offered job-related rewards in exchange for sexual favors by someone in a position of power. A key element of Marianne's right to action is the existence of a pattern of repeated occurrences, not just isolated incidents, which seems to be the case given the 'constant' nature of the harassment described.