Week 5 Case Brief
CASE 21-1
Teresa Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.
United States Supreme Court 510 U.S. 17 (1994)
Plaintiff Harris was a manager for Defendant Forklift Systems, Inc. During her tenure at Forklift Systems, Plaintiff Harris was repeatedly insulted by defendant’s president and, because of her gender, subjected to sexual innuendos. Numerous times, in front of others, the president told Harris, “You’re just a woman, what do you know?” He sometimes asked Harris and other female employees to remove coins from his pockets and made suggestive comments about their clothes. He suggested to Harris in front of others that they negotiate her salary at the Holiday Inn. When Harris complained, he said he would stop, but he did not; so she quit and filed an action against the defendant for creating an abusive work environment based on her sex.
The district court found in favor of the defendant, holding that some of the comments were offensive to the reasonable woman but were not so serious as to severely affect Harris’s psychological well-being or to interfere with her work performance. The court of appeals affirmed. Plaintiff Harris appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Justice O’Connor
In this case we consider the definition of a discriminatorily “abusive work environment” (a “hostile work environment”) under Title VII.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it “an unlawful employment practice for an employer… to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”… [T]his language “is not limited to ‘economic’ or ‘tangible’ discrimination. The phrase ‘terms, conditions, or privileges of employment’ evinces a congressional intent ‘to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women’ in employment,” which includes requiring people to work in a discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment. When the workplace is permeated with “discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,” that is “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”
This standard, which we reaffirm today, takes a middle path between making actionable any conduct that is merely offensive and requiring the conduct to cause a tangible psychological injury. As we pointed out in Meritor, “mere utterance of an ‘epithet which engenders offensive feelings in a employee,’ does not sufficiently affect conditions of employment to implicate Title VII. Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment’—an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive”—is beyond Title VII’s purview. Likewise, if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim’s employment, and there is no Title VII violation.
But Title VII comes into play before the harassing conduct leads to a nervous breakdown. A discriminatorily abusive work environment, even one that does not seriously affect employees’ psychological well-being, can and often will detract from employees’ job performance, discourage employees from remaining on the job, or keep them from advancing in their careers. Moreover, even without regard to these tangible effects, the very fact that the discriminatory conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a work environment abusive to employees because of their race, gender, religion, or national origin offends Title VII’s broad rule of workplace equality. The appalling conduct alleged in Meritor, and the reference in that case to environments “so heavily polluted with discrimination as to destroy completely the emotional and psychological stability of minority group workers,” merely present some especially egregious examples of harassment. They do not mark the boundary of what is actionable.
We therefore believe the District Court erred in relying on whether the conduct “seriously affected plaintiff’s psychological well-being” or led her to “suffer injury.” Such an inquiry may needlessly focus the fact-finder’s attention on concrete psychological harm, an element Title VII does not require. Certainly Title VII bars conduct that would seriously affect a reasonable person’s psychological well-being, but the statute is not limited to such conduct. So long as the environment would reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive, there is no need for it also to be psychologically injurious.
This is not, and by its nature cannot be, a mathematically precise test. But we can say that whether an environment is “hostile” or “abusive” can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. The effect on the employee’s psychological well-being is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. But while psychological harm, like any other relevant factor, may be taken into account, no single factor is required.
Reversed and remanded in favor of Plaintiff, Harris.
CRITICAL THINKING ABOUT THE LAW
As has previously been touched upon, the judiciary most often operates in relationship to shades of gray and not to the black and white between which those shades lie. The Court’s decision in Case 21-1, in large part dependent on its determination of a definition, illustrates this point.
The Court’s primary test was to decide what constitutes an “abusive work environment,” the second type of sexual harassment actionable under Title VII. Deciding on such a definition is not as easy as going to a legal dictionary and looking up “abusive work environment.” The Court had to interpret the meaning of such an environment, and important to this interpretation were legal precedent, ambiguity, and primary ethical norms.
Hence, the questions that follow will aid in thinking critically about these factors influential in the Court’s interpretation.
• 1. What ambiguous language did the Court leave undefined in Case 21-1? Clue: To find this answer, look at the Court’s definition of an “objectively hostile work environment.” As always, remember that ambiguities, most often, are adjectives.
• 2. In her discussion of the precedent, Justice O’Connor made it clear that the district court misinterpreted the decision in rendering its decision. Contrary to the district court’s decision, the existence of which key fact was not necessary for the Court to find the defendant guilty of sexual harassment? Clue: Revisit the paragraph discussing the district court’s dismissal of Harris’s claim. On what basis was this dismissal made? This is the key fact the existence of which the Supreme Court found unnecessary for judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT

Legal issues

Order Description

Course work Pages from text book listed below
As e-commerce continues to grow in the United States and abroad, new consumer protection laws are needed. Use the Internet to research recent developments in consumer protection for transactions through cyberspace. (Kubasek et al., 2013, p. 754-5). Consider cyberspace consumer protections that may affect the business in which you work, in which you would like to work, or from a situation you have experienced. Think of this issue from the perspective of a business working with customers; consider how protecting customers may cost your business profits, or, how it might make your business profits by “differentiating” your business from others like it. Then, consider this from the perspective of a legislator or regulator, trying to protect customers from this situation. (Some ideas: identity theft, credit card interest rates, airline baggage fees, etc.). Be creative.
Make a recommendation for a government regulation, or law that you would like to see enacted. Think of the consequences (good and bad) of the proposed regulation or law that you have suggested to businesses, and to consumers. Consider any unintended consequences that might occur. Your paper should have the following sections:
1. Regulation or law proposal. Be very specific in the wording. (Your own idea and words). (20 points).
a. What problem did you find in your research online that your regulation plans to address? Include a citation to the article(s) that describes the problem. (10 points)
b. What consequences might your proposed regulation/law have on affected businesses? Describe one good and one bad consequence. (10 points)
c. What consequences might your proposed regulation/law have on protected consumers? Describe one good and one bad consequence. (10 points)
d. Consider unintended consequences. What might one be? Describe it. (5 points).
2. References
o Include a reference(s) from the problem(s) you found in your online research. (5 points)
o APA formatting required. (5 points)
o 65 points.
3. Goulet v. Education Credit Management Corp., 284 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2002).
4. 25-14
5. After graduating from law school—and serving time in prison for attempting to collect debts by posing as an FBI agent—Barry Sussman theorized that if a debt-collection business collected only debts that it owned as a result of buying checks written on accounts with insufficient funds (NSF checks), it would not be subject to the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Sussman formed Check Investors, Inc., to act on his theory. Check Investors bought more than 2.2 million NSF checks, with an estimated face value of about $348 million, for pennies on the dollar. Check Investors added a fee of $125 or $130 to the face amount of each check (which exceeds the legal limit in most states) and aggressively pursued its drawer to collect. The firm’s employees were told to accuse drawers of being criminals and to threaten them with arrest and prosecution. The threats were false. Check Investors never took steps to initiate a prosecution. The employees contacted the drawers’ family members and used “saturation phoning”—phoning a drawer numerous times in a short period. They used abusive language, referring to drawers as “deadbeats,” “retards,” “thieves,” and “idiots.” Between January 2000 and January 2003, Check Investors netted more than $10.2 million from its efforts. The Federal Trade Commission filed suit in a federal district court against Check Investors and others, alleging, in part, violations of the FDCPA. Was Check Investors a “debt collector,” collecting “debts,” within the meaning of the FDCPA? If so, did its methods violate the FDCPA? What might Check Investors use to argue in its defense? Discuss. Explain. Federal Trade Commission v. Check Investors, Inc., 502 F.3d 159 (3rd Cir. 2007).
6. 25-15
7. CrossCheck, Inc., provides check authorization services to retail merchants. When a customer presents a check, the merchant contacts CrossCheck, which estimates the probability that the check will clear the bank. If the check is within an acceptable statistical range, CrossCheck notifies the merchant. If the check is dishonored, the merchant sends it to CrossCheck, which pays it. CrossCheck then attempts to redeposit the check. If this fails, CrossCheck takes further steps to collect the amount. William Winterstein took his truck to C&P Auto Service Center, Inc., for a tune-up and paid for the service with a check. C&P contacted CrossCheck and, on its recommendation, accepted the check. When the check was dishonored, C&P mailed it to CrossCheck, which reimbursed C&P and sent a letter to Winterstein, requesting payment. Winterstein filed a suit in a federal district court against CrossCheck, asserting that the letter violated the FDCPA. CrossCheck filed a motion for summary judgment. Who won? Explain. Winterstein v. CrossCheck, Inc., 149 F. Supp. 2d 466 (N.D. Ill. 2001).
8. 25-16
9. Source One Associates, Inc., is based in Poughquag, New York. Peter Easton, Source One’s president, is responsible for its daily operations. Between 1995 and 1997, Source One received requests 753754from persons in Massachusetts seeking financial information about individuals and businesses. To obtain this information, Easton first obtained the targeted individuals’ credit reports through Equifax Consumer Information Services by claiming that the reports would be used only in connection with credit transactions involving the consumers. From the reports, Easton identified financial institutions at which individuals held accounts and then called the institutions to learn the account balances by impersonating either officers of the institutions or the account holders. The information was then provided to Source One’s customers for a fee. Easton did not know why the customers wanted the information. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a suit in a Massachusetts state court against Source One and Easton, alleging violations of the FCRA. Did the defendants violate the FCRA? Explain. Commonwealth v. Source One Associates, Inc., 436 Mass. 118, 763 N.E.2d 42 (2002).
The FTC needs to set tighter standards with regard to advertising aimed at children. The FTCA is supposed to protect consumers from deceptive advertising, and it is about time the FTC does its job and enforces the law.
Children are less sophisticated than adults, and they’re unable to separate reality from fiction. Therefore, they are more susceptible to the cunning ploys of marketing and advertising wizards. These people show no shame, endlessly manipulating small children just to make money.
“How are our children being manipulated?” you ask. It’s obvious. Every time they turn on the TV, they’re subjected to a plethora of commercial advertisements. Many of the TV shows that kids watch are nothing more than half-hour advertisements for a particular toy. Additionally, the ads themselves mislead children. In the ads, toy companies show kids looking as happy and satisfied as possible while they play with the toys. The children who see these images are convinced that if they only had the toy, they would be just as happy. When they actually receive the toy, however, they find that it’s fun to play with for a few hours, but not much longer. They never experience the continuing climax of joy that the advertisers make them think they will. Such disappointments are likely to harm the children psychologically, making them become cynical at a young age.
For these reasons, the FTC must step in to protect our children from these money-hungry marketers. To fail to do so is to jeopardize America’s future: its children.
• 1. What primary ethical norm is downplayed by this argument?
• 2. In this argument, what is the relevant rule of law to which the author refers?
• 3. What reasons does the author give for tighter control of advertising aimed at children?
• 4. Please state opposing arguments to those set out by the author in this essay.
ASSIGNMENT ON THE INTERNET
As e-commerce continues to grow in the United States and abroad, new consumer protection laws are needed. Now that you know something about current consumer protection laws in the United States, use the Internet to research recent developments in consumer protection for transactions through cyberspace. Make a list of recommendations for new regulations or rules that you would like to see enacted. What ethical norms are implicit in your recommendations?
754755
ON THE INTERNET
www.lectlaw.com//tcos.html Here is a law library site that is a good place from which to begin your research about consumer protection issues.

Institute provides an overview of debtor–creditor law, as well as links to recent debtor–creditor law decisions.

www.ct.gov/dcp/site/default.asp The Connecticut State Department of Consumer Protection website provides citizens of that state with consumer information. Many states similarly offer some form of consumer protection information online.

www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm The FTC maintains a website with consumer information.

www.nclc.org This site is the National Consumer Law Center, which provides a wealth of information on the topic of debtor–creditor relations and consumer protection.

Legal issues

Order Description

Course work Pages from text book listed below
As e-commerce continues to grow in the United States and abroad, new consumer protection laws are needed. Use the Internet to research recent developments in consumer protection for transactions through cyberspace. (Kubasek et al., 2013, p. 754-5). Consider cyberspace consumer protections that may affect the business in which you work, in which you would like to work, or from a situation you have experienced. Think of this issue from the perspective of a business working with customers; consider how protecting customers may cost your business profits, or, how it might make your business profits by “differentiating” your business from others like it. Then, consider this from the perspective of a legislator or regulator, trying to protect customers from this situation. (Some ideas: identity theft, credit card interest rates, airline baggage fees, etc.). Be creative.
Make a recommendation for a government regulation, or law that you would like to see enacted. Think of the consequences (good and bad) of the proposed regulation or law that you have suggested to businesses, and to consumers. Consider any unintended consequences that might occur. Your paper should have the following sections:
1. Regulation or law proposal. Be very specific in the wording. (Your own idea and words). (20 points).
a. What problem did you find in your research online that your regulation plans to address? Include a citation to the article(s) that describes the problem. (10 points)
b. What consequences might your proposed regulation/law have on affected businesses? Describe one good and one bad consequence. (10 points)
c. What consequences might your proposed regulation/law have on protected consumers? Describe one good and one bad consequence. (10 points)
d. Consider unintended consequences. What might one be? Describe it. (5 points).
2. References
o Include a reference(s) from the problem(s) you found in your online research. (5 points)
o APA formatting required. (5 points)
o 65 points.
3. Goulet v. Education Credit Management Corp., 284 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2002).
4. 25-14
5. After graduating from law school—and serving time in prison for attempting to collect debts by posing as an FBI agent—Barry Sussman theorized that if a debt-collection business collected only debts that it owned as a result of buying checks written on accounts with insufficient funds (NSF checks), it would not be subject to the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Sussman formed Check Investors, Inc., to act on his theory. Check Investors bought more than 2.2 million NSF checks, with an estimated face value of about $348 million, for pennies on the dollar. Check Investors added a fee of $125 or $130 to the face amount of each check (which exceeds the legal limit in most states) and aggressively pursued its drawer to collect. The firm’s employees were told to accuse drawers of being criminals and to threaten them with arrest and prosecution. The threats were false. Check Investors never took steps to initiate a prosecution. The employees contacted the drawers’ family members and used “saturation phoning”—phoning a drawer numerous times in a short period. They used abusive language, referring to drawers as “deadbeats,” “retards,” “thieves,” and “idiots.” Between January 2000 and January 2003, Check Investors netted more than $10.2 million from its efforts. The Federal Trade Commission filed suit in a federal district court against Check Investors and others, alleging, in part, violations of the FDCPA. Was Check Investors a “debt collector,” collecting “debts,” within the meaning of the FDCPA? If so, did its methods violate the FDCPA? What might Check Investors use to argue in its defense? Discuss. Explain. Federal Trade Commission v. Check Investors, Inc., 502 F.3d 159 (3rd Cir. 2007).
6. 25-15
7. CrossCheck, Inc., provides check authorization services to retail merchants. When a customer presents a check, the merchant contacts CrossCheck, which estimates the probability that the check will clear the bank. If the check is within an acceptable statistical range, CrossCheck notifies the merchant. If the check is dishonored, the merchant sends it to CrossCheck, which pays it. CrossCheck then attempts to redeposit the check. If this fails, CrossCheck takes further steps to collect the amount. William Winterstein took his truck to C&P Auto Service Center, Inc., for a tune-up and paid for the service with a check. C&P contacted CrossCheck and, on its recommendation, accepted the check. When the check was dishonored, C&P mailed it to CrossCheck, which reimbursed C&P and sent a letter to Winterstein, requesting payment. Winterstein filed a suit in a federal district court against CrossCheck, asserting that the letter violated the FDCPA. CrossCheck filed a motion for summary judgment. Who won? Explain. Winterstein v. CrossCheck, Inc., 149 F. Supp. 2d 466 (N.D. Ill. 2001).
8. 25-16
9. Source One Associates, Inc., is based in Poughquag, New York. Peter Easton, Source One’s president, is responsible for its daily operations. Between 1995 and 1997, Source One received requests 753754from persons in Massachusetts seeking financial information about individuals and businesses. To obtain this information, Easton first obtained the targeted individuals’ credit reports through Equifax Consumer Information Services by claiming that the reports would be used only in connection with credit transactions involving the consumers. From the reports, Easton identified financial institutions at which individuals held accounts and then called the institutions to learn the account balances by impersonating either officers of the institutions or the account holders. The information was then provided to Source One’s customers for a fee. Easton did not know why the customers wanted the information. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a suit in a Massachusetts state court against Source One and Easton, alleging violations of the FCRA. Did the defendants violate the FCRA? Explain. Commonwealth v. Source One Associates, Inc., 436 Mass. 118, 763 N.E.2d 42 (2002).
The FTC needs to set tighter standards with regard to advertising aimed at children. The FTCA is supposed to protect consumers from deceptive advertising, and it is about time the FTC does its job and enforces the law.
Children are less sophisticated than adults, and they’re unable to separate reality from fiction. Therefore, they are more susceptible to the cunning ploys of marketing and advertising wizards. These people show no shame, endlessly manipulating small children just to make money.
“How are our children being manipulated?” you ask. It’s obvious. Every time they turn on the TV, they’re subjected to a plethora of commercial advertisements. Many of the TV shows that kids watch are nothing more than half-hour advertisements for a particular toy. Additionally, the ads themselves mislead children. In the ads, toy companies show kids looking as happy and satisfied as possible while they play with the toys. The children who see these images are convinced that if they only had the toy, they would be just as happy. When they actually receive the toy, however, they find that it’s fun to play with for a few hours, but not much longer. They never experience the continuing climax of joy that the advertisers make them think they will. Such disappointments are likely to harm the children psychologically, making them become cynical at a young age.
For these reasons, the FTC must step in to protect our children from these money-hungry marketers. To fail to do so is to jeopardize America’s future: its children.
• 1. What primary ethical norm is downplayed by this argument?
• 2. In this argument, what is the relevant rule of law to which the author refers?
• 3. What reasons does the author give for tighter control of advertising aimed at children?
• 4. Please state opposing arguments to those set out by the author in this essay.
ASSIGNMENT ON THE INTERNET
As e-commerce continues to grow in the United States and abroad, new consumer protection laws are needed. Now that you know something about current consumer protection laws in the United States, use the Internet to research recent developments in consumer protection for transactions through cyberspace. Make a list of recommendations for new regulations or rules that you would like to see enacted. What ethical norms are implicit in your recommendations?
754755
ON THE INTERNET
www.lectlaw.com//tcos.html Here is a law library site that is a good place from which to begin your research about consumer protection issues.

Institute provides an overview of debtor–creditor law, as well as links to recent debtor–creditor law decisions.

www.ct.gov/dcp/site/default.asp The Connecticut State Department of Consumer Protection website provides citizens of that state with consumer information. Many states similarly offer some form of consumer protection information online.

www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm The FTC maintains a website with consumer information.

www.nclc.org This site is the National Consumer Law Center, which provides a wealth of information on the topic of debtor–creditor relations and consumer protection.