The Key elements in the decision which overturned the lower courts decision were that an “abusive work environment harassment need not ‘seriously affect [an employee’s] psychological well being’ or lead the plaintiff to ‘suffer injury.’”
I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. Hardy, Teresa Harris’ boss, on numerous accounts displayed inappropriate behavior. Referring to Harris as a “dumb ass woman”, suggesting that they discuss her raise in a near by hotel, tossing different items onto the ground and asking female employees to pick them, repeatedly asking female coworkers to retrieve change out of his front pants pockets, and not to mention the reoccurring sexual innuendos. Harris confronted Hardy and told him that she was uncomfortable. Hardy apologized, said he was only joking, and vouched to elude inappropriate comments and behavior in the future. Later Hardy asked Harris if she promised a customer sex in order to receive his business; Harris collected her check and quit. Harris then sued Forklift, claiming that Hardy’s conduct created an abusive work environment because of her gender. Defining ‘psychological well being’ and ‘abusive work environment’ is a never ending task. They are both interpretations and this case seemed to arouse this issue. I couldn’t agree more with the court’s decision to overturn the decision. I believe that an abusive environment was very well created, and that Harris psychological well being could easily have been seriously effected.