Author Question: What justification exists in the statutory language or Supreme Court precedents for a categorical ... (Read 78 times)

Davideckstein7 · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

What justification exists in the statutory language or Supreme Court precedents for a categorical rule excluding same sex harassment claims from coverage of Title VII?

Question 2

Three terrorists are plotting to blow up a high-rise office building, which could lead to thousands of deaths. The police capture their computers and read the files before obtaining a warrant. Which of the following searches would be illegal? I. Marshall has written elaborate plans, which are stored on the hard drive of his laptop. II. Winston has violated school policies by downloading plans for bombs from the Internet through his employer's network. III. Montgomery has made rental car reservations over the Internet in a cybercaf.
a. I, II, and III.
b. Neither I, II, nor III.
c. Just I.
d. Just II.
e. Just III.

Koolkid240 · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

None. Accordingly the Oncale decision simplifies the law regarding sexual harassmentthe law protects all victims of sexual harassment in the workplaceno exceptions.
It is also important to remember the Court's warning that common sense and context must apply before courts and juries when determining whether the conduct is severely hostile or abusive. There is room for same sex teasing and roughhousing. However, many employers do not want to incur the expense and trouble of litigating and have issued zero tolerance policies.

Answer to Question 2

.C