Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site prism.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!cca!prism!dawn
From: dawn@prism.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Harassment case
Message-ID: <6100011@prism.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Dec-85 17:01:00 EST
Article-I.D.: prism.6100011
Posted: Thu Dec 19 17:01:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Dec-85 04:31:04 EST
References: <704@petrus.UUCP>
Lines: 48
Nf-ID: #R:petrus:-70400:prism:6100011:000:2253
Nf-From: prism!dawn    Dec 19 17:01:00 1985


>
>Here is my original question:
>
>	Why should a company be responsible if they 1) are not aware
>	of the sexual harrasment, and 2) there is no way than can
>	reasonably be aware of it?
>

	In Boston recently a truck driver ignored or didn't see signs warning
	of a low bridge clearance, and ran into the bridge, causing
	extensive damage.  For this he was fined ($200 I think).
	Because he was operating a company-owned truck at the time, his
	employer was also fined the cost of repairing the bridge (around
	$200,000).  Obviously, the employer had no way of knowing at the
	time that their driver would, through his negligence, destroy a
	bridge, nor could they resonably have been aware of it unless the
	driver telephoned his intentions to his boss that morning.  
	Nevertheless, the employer was still held to be responsible.

	Why?

	Maybe employers are responsible for insuring that the people they
	hire are competent to handle the jobs they do, especially when the
	incompetent performance of those jobs affects the lives or well-being
	of others.  

	More likely, though, it is because a corporation, by definition,
	is a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person,
	although constituted by one or more persons.  By this definition, the
	entire body is responsible for the actions of any individual member of
	the body,  much like *you* would be responsible should your hand 
	choose to steal something.  Since the corporation is defined as a
	single person, (and with legally endowed rights and *duties*), the 
	issue of whether or not the corporation knew of the action(s) of its 
	member(s) is purely academic.

	So, if a manager is harrassing an employee -- because of sex, or race,
	or creed -- the corporation is harassing the employee, and should be
	held accountable.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dawn Stockbridge Hall     {cca, datacube, ihnp4, inmet, mit-eddie, wjh12}...
 Mirror Systems, Inc.                                    ...mirror!prism!dawn

"If all possible objections must first be overcome, 
                                   then nothing significant will ever happen."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------