Ethics in the Workplace

1. EEOC was named the plaintiff in this case instead of Ms. Shaw because the IHOP is a part of a franchise so that means that they are a part of the union so if anything happens then they have to report it to the EEOC and if it is something they want to handle then they will take the necessary actions to get the worker justice. Rachel Schreier, Michelle Powell and Tashia Petrokonis claimed that they were being harassed.

2. Retaliatory Discharge (claim) is "a legal term for the punishment of an employee for engaging in a protected activity, such as filing a discrimination charge or opposing unlawful employer practices."

The facts that leads the EEOC to claim that Shaw's termination was retaliatory are:  (1) she engaged in a protected activity, (2) the defendant subjected her to an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection existed between the two events. Id. Under the indirect method, she must show that she opposed the defendant's discrimination and, unlike any similarly situated employee who did not oppose discrimination, was subjected to an adverse employment action even though her job performance was satisfactory.

3. Yes I think the defendants' acts rose to the level of egregiousness to justify punitve damages because when she told him about the situation he did nothing about it, he just ignored the situation. 

Punitive damages are monetary compensation awarded to an injured party that goes beyond that which is necessary to compensate the individual for losses and that is intended to punish the wrongdoer.

Sexual harassment occurs when one employee makes continued, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, to another employee, against his or her wishes.

Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of situations. These are examples of sexual harassment, not intended to be all inclusive.

* Unwanted jokes, gestures, offensive words on clothing, and unwelcome comments and...