Ebony
Law/531
November 2, 2015
Aaron Gershonowitz

In the case of “You the Judge” The defendant was under the assumption that he was denied a promotion due to actions of his coworker the plaintiff because of an inappropriate screen saver that was sent to his computer. In the defense of the defendant this screensaver was completely inappropriate and the behavior from his coworker was not professional by any means and due to those actions alone she should have been reprimanded or even fired if it could have been proven that she was the one that sent the screensaver. The defendant also stated in his argument that he often participated with other members in the office when they joked around about things that were not work appropriate. The judge’s decision was made very easily due to evidence and the defendant’s testimony. The evidence showed what the employee’s job description was and what is expected of them as employees along with guidelines for any sexual harassment that may been seen or expected. The defendant basically shoot himself in the foot by not reporting any of the incidents that occurred in the workplace. When the initial incident occurred he should have reported the employees and the appropriate actions would have been handled by management. The plaintiff’s testimony was truthful and she even exploited more of the truth than what the defendant initially stated in his testimony. The sexual harassment was done both ways and he made it seem like he was the only victims in this case. The judge ruled in neither of the two because there was no proof of that emails and screensaver caused the defendant to not get his promotion. I do believe that if he had proof from his boss that he didn’t get the job due to the screen saver then the ruling would have been different.
Civil liability is to be responsible for debts or wrongdoing against another private party (Clark, n.d). In the case of Mr.Silverstien and Ms. Shawl the employer could have faced some serious legal issues if they had known about all the sexual harassment that was going on within the office. Although the employees where just having some friendly and to them harmless fun things got completely out of control. As stated in the case neither of the employees recalled signing or even having any acknowledgment of any sexual harassment rules that where set up by the employer. In the defense of the employer there was a form that covered their sexual harassment clause. The company needs to have a class that talks about sexual harassment and the different types so that in the future there is no confusion. The company could have defended the employee if he had reported the sexual harassment and his case would have been ruled in his favor. This case could have turned into a tort claim if the employee would have sued the company verses his employee. A tort claim is based not on statutes or written laws, but on case law that has developed from common law court decisions. A tort is a civil wrong or injury that claims can be brought in federal court in additional to the federal issue or can be brought in state court. In employment law cases, these include issues such as: intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; defamation – libel and slander; wrongful discharge or termination; and, negligent hiring or retention ("Workplace Tort", 2015). The plaintiff must show an actionable wrong and damages resulting from the harm.
Independent contractors are employees that work on their own pace as agreed to by the employer and they are also not eligible for employee benefits (Felg, 2009). The contractors are also not covered under the federal anti-discrimination laws, the federal wage and hour law (the Fair Labor Standards Act or “FLSA”), or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). New York, Connecticut and New Jersey state laws covering workers' compensation, unemployment, and anti-discrimination also fail to protect independent contractors ("Employees Vs Independent Contractors", 1991). In the case of the plaintiff and the defendant the same sexual harassment rules will not apply to the independent contractor because they are not to be considered an employee. The same federal laws don’t protect them. The defendant can take matters into their own hands and possible sue them if they had proper evidence. Overall the liability for the employer is not as serious due to the laws that the government has to protect them with.

Reference
Barnes, Bowers, Mallar, Langvardt. (2015). you be the judge [Multimedia]. Retrieved from Barnes, Bowers, Mallar, Langvardt, Law 531 website.
Clark, P. (n.d). Defenses to legal liability. Retrieved from http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/defenses-to-civil-liability.html
Employees Vs independent contractors. (1991). Retrieved from http://www.probonopartnership.org/PBPGuide/PBPHandbook-03.htm
Felg, E. (2009). Employee vs. Independent Contractor: Differences You Need to Know. Retrieved from https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/employee-vs-independent-contractor-differences-you-need-to-know
Workplace tort. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.likeforex.com/glossary/w/workplace-tort-3663