The Court should reverse the partial summary judgment, because Mr. Carson’s actions were threatening and humiliating, because the appellant, pulling the seat belt of the car across her body and expressing his sexual desire for her, or calling her “Luscious Lisa” and touching her in several occasions created an objective hostile workplace environment sexual harassment sufficiently severe to alter the condition of the victim’s employment.
1 An hostile workplace harassment is objectively hostile when the actions of touching a co-worker are severe and pervasive enough to alter the term of the employment.
2 Comments severe enough to alter the work place create a hostile workplace environment.
3 Innuendos create an uncomfortable work environment when are an unwelcome sexual invitation.
Table of Contents
- Table of Contents
- Table of Authorities
- Statement of Jurisdiction
- Statement of the Issue
- Statement of the Case
- Statement of Facts
- Summary of Argument
- Argument
- The Court of Appeals Should Reverse the Partial Summary Judgment Granted by the District Court of Maine, Because Title VII Prohibits Creating a Hostile Work Environment on the Bases of the Severity and Pervasiveness of the Conduct of Mr. Carson
- The Court should reverse the partial summary judgment, because Mr. Carson's actions were threatening and humiliating
- The Court of Appeals should reverse the partial Summary Judgment, because the appellant was the object of pervasive conduct that permeated the workplace environment
- Conclusion
Objectives and Key Themes
The objective of this legal document is to appeal a partial summary judgment granted by the District Court of Maine. The appellant argues that the court erred in its decision because the defendant's actions constituted a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- Hostile work environment created by sexual harassment
- Severity and pervasiveness of harassing conduct
- Legal interpretation of Title VII
- Analysis of specific instances of harassment (touching, inappropriate comments)
- Applicability of precedent in similar cases
Chapter Summaries
Statement of Jurisdiction: This section establishes the court's authority to hear the case, citing the relevant federal rules of civil procedure and confirming the appeal's origin from a final order of the United States District Court of Maine. It concisely outlines the legal basis for the appeal's consideration.
Statement of the Issue: This section clearly articulates the central question before the court: whether the District Court of Maine erred in granting partial summary judgment. It frames the legal dispute around the interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its prohibition of hostile work environments based on sexual harassment. The core issue is whether the defendant's actions meet the legal threshold for creating such an environment.
Statement of the Case: This section provides a chronological overview of the case's procedural history. It details the filing of the complaint, the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, and the plaintiff's response. This sets the stage for the arguments to follow by summarizing the procedural steps leading to the current appeal.
Statement of Facts: This chapter presents the factual basis of the plaintiff's claim. It describes the alleged actions of Mr. Carson, outlining specific instances of inappropriate touching and verbally harassing comments made towards Lisa Hebert. The factual account forms the cornerstone of the legal arguments, demonstrating how Mr. Carson's conduct created a hostile work environment. This section highlights the events leading to the lawsuit and the basis of the plaintiff's allegations.
Summary of Argument: This section provides a concise overview of the plaintiff’s key arguments. It offers a preview of the legal reasoning and evidence that will be presented to support the claim that the lower court’s decision was in error. It acts as a roadmap for the subsequent detailed argumentation.
Argument: This section forms the core of the appellant's case, meticulously analyzing the defendant's conduct under Title VII. It argues that Mr. Carson's actions were both severe and pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. The appellant breaks down the argument into sub-sections, examining specific examples of harassment and relying on legal precedent to support the claim. Each subsection methodically builds on the previous one and strengthens the overall argument that the lower court incorrectly ruled in favor of the defendant. The appellant uses a combination of case law, legal analysis, and the facts presented to persuade the court of its position.
Keywords
Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, summary judgment, severity, pervasiveness, threatening conduct, humiliating conduct, appellate court, legal precedent.
Frequently Asked Questions: Appeal of Partial Summary Judgment
What is the main objective of this legal document?
The primary objective is to appeal a partial summary judgment granted by the District Court of Maine. The appellant contends that the court erred in its decision because the defendant's actions created a hostile work environment, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
What are the key themes explored in this document?
Key themes include the creation of a hostile work environment through sexual harassment, the severity and pervasiveness of harassing conduct, legal interpretation of Title VII, analysis of specific harassment instances (touching, inappropriate comments), and the application of precedent in similar cases.
What is the structure of the document?
The document follows a standard legal brief format. It includes a table of contents, a statement of jurisdiction, a statement of the issue, a statement of the case, a statement of facts, a summary of the argument, the main argument itself, and a conclusion. Each section plays a crucial role in building the appellant's case.
What is the central legal issue in this appeal?
The core issue is whether the defendant's actions meet the legal threshold for creating a hostile work environment under Title VII. The appellant argues that the District Court erred in finding that they did not.
What specific actions are alleged to have created a hostile work environment?
The document details instances of inappropriate touching and verbally harassing comments made by Mr. Carson towards Lisa Hebert. These specific examples form the factual basis of the appellant's claim.
What legal precedent is relevant to this case?
The appellant's argument relies on legal precedent, using case law to support the claim that Mr. Carson's actions were severe and pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. The specific cases cited are not detailed in this preview.
What is the argument presented by the appellant?
The appellant argues that the District Court's grant of partial summary judgment was incorrect. They contend that Mr. Carson's actions were both severe and pervasive, creating a hostile work environment that violated Title VII. The argument meticulously analyzes specific examples of harassment and uses legal precedent to support this claim.
What is the desired outcome of this appeal?
The appellant seeks to have the Court of Appeals reverse the partial summary judgment granted by the District Court of Maine, finding that the defendant's actions did constitute a hostile work environment under Title VII.
What are the key words associated with this legal document?
Key words include Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, summary judgment, severity, pervasiveness, threatening conduct, humiliating conduct, appellate court, and legal precedent.
Where can I find more detailed information about this case?
This document provides a comprehensive preview, but for full details, you would need to access the complete legal brief and related court documents.
- Citar trabajo
- Giovanni Piepoli (Autor), 2006, Advanced legal writing. Case about hostile work environment and sexual harassment, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/358338
