The Supreme Court received a petition regarding the hostile atmosphere, which includes sexual harassment. What criteria should be used to determine the appropriate course of action in response to sexual prejudice in the workplace? What extent of sexual harassment that results in hostile work settings falls under the purview of the employer's responsibility?
Facts: Lehmann brought forth a particular civil case against Toy r'us, her employer. Lehmann alleged that we sexually harassed her, in violation of LAD, and exposed her to a hostile work environment. The trial court, however, dismissed all the claims of Lehmann awarding him only his battery claim. This lead to Lehmann making an appeal in the appellate division. The appellate division agreed to Lehmann's claim, and that reversed the court dismissals. The agreed that the trial court had not followed LAD properly in their evaluation of Lehmann claim. The court of the first instance did not solve the dispute, but it assumed that all Lehmann claims were true and she had failed to state a claim for sexual harassment in work.
Analysis: Hostile work environments are caused by sexual harassments of the employer to the employee. The sexual harassments are conducted in the form of unwelcoming sexual contacts and touching. Lehmann claims that r'we created a hostile work environment for her and other women in the work place by trying to make her submit to his sexual demands. This is the violation of the LAD, and the trial court should have investigated the claim properly instead of dismissing it.
Conclusion: sexual harassment in work places should always be discouraged. The trial court did not follow the LAD in the trial of Lehmann with her employer r’us. The appellate division ruled in favor of Lehmann and reversed the case to the trial court. This acts creates poor working environments for different people. The trial court did not have any good reason for dismissing Lehmann harassment claims.
