“Your honor, the most distinguished gentlemen and ladies of the jury, this case is about an indictment of sexual harassment and wrongful dismissal from a job. This whole incident took place in the year-2 when the plaintiff, Alice Rowe was working for her employer; Pacific Quad Inc. Ms. Rowe had worked for the company for nearly a week before she decided to leave the job after several allegations of sexual harassment by her supervisor who was the operations manager of the company, Mr. Stanley Schmit. The president of the company was informed of the allegations, but he did little to save the situation. In fact, the president of the company, John Walsh simply ratified the alleged sexual harassment.”
- I. What are the rules?
The defendant in this case is the Pacific Quad Incorporation. Ladies, gentle and the distinguished jury, the testimony that is going to be presented and heard in this case, may at times prove to be complicated, but still there is some remedy to it. The rule that the judge is likely to ask to be applied at the end is rather simple: “Did Pacific Quad Inc., fail to take immediate action to stop its operations manager from sexually harassing Ms. Rowe, an event that led to her wrongful dismissal?”
- II. What did the defendant do?
The indictment in this case sets for that the Pacific Quad Incorporation’s operations manager; Stanley Schmit sexually harassed his subordinate staff, Ms. Rowe. Schmit continuously made very offensive comments of sexual nature to Rower, leered at the plaintiff, brushing by her so that he could touch her, and even tried to proposition her. The defendant in this case did not plead guilty to the indictment. Therefore, it is the duty of the jury and the legal bench to prove the company guilty. And, if they prove the defendant guilty, every person with interest in this indictment must definitely find it so.
The burden of proof lies on the prosecutor to precisely prove to that Schmit was an operations manager and an employee of the Pacific Quad Inc., and Walsh, the president of the company did nothing to stop him from his alleged sexual harassment against Rowe. Instead of taking some punitive or corrective action against Schmit, he simply ratified the sexual harassment claims that were brought before him. As agents of the company, both Walsh and Schmit who are in the position of authority and vested with the power of running the company, they are supposed to manage it with absolute care, diligence and profession, since they had failed in this, the company was liable to award damages to Rowe, if she wins the case. Schmit and Walsh could not be individually sued for the offense committed since they made the mistake in the course of duty. However, they can still be sued for failing to observe the professional diligence and care in the line of duty, which is against the set work standards, codes of ethics and procedures.
- III. What were the immediate harms?
It would be one of the most barbarous facts, to sexually harass a lady and make her lose her employment, probably the only means of livelihood. Therefore, the plaintiff claims her lost wages, psychotherapy expenses, punitive damages, and emotional distress damages. Considering the facts in this case, relying on the presented substantive evidence, it is justified for the jury to compel the company to award damages for the loss suffered, as her compensation.
- IV. Who are we suing and why?
After this incident, the investigating officers carried out an investigation on the matter. They presented their report findings on the Pacific Quad’s incident on the matter and proposed some recommendations on avoiding future occurrence. This group of professionals composed of people with relevant skills and several years of experience. Even though, you do not have experience and technical expertise in company management’ I would leave this simple question to you: “Did the company observe the professional codes of conduct in dealing with its employees? And, is it justified to refuse to award damages to the plaintiff, Rowe?”
Thank you very much for your time to hear from me.
The Court: Ms. Sara.
Ms. Sara: Thank you once more, your honor.