Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Anna Case Study

Given the context and the fact that being a convicted criminal and a sex offender could conceivably make the risk of any type of abuse (whether or not of a sexual nature) foreseeable, that defense is unlikely to succeed. However, generally, the knowledge of one Board member who does not disclose that knowledge to the Board will not be imputed to the rest of the Board. In any case, that issue is unlikely to matter because of the school's liability in negligence even without knowledge.

Question # 3

As previously discussed, the school is likely to be found liable to Anna for Title VII discrimination by virtue of her age because it allowed Forester to create a hostile work environment by failing to discipline either Forester or DuFrane, the other male teacher who made the hostile statement. The school will argue that even under those facts, the severity and extent of the statements were insufficient to justify liability because they amounted to only two isolated statements. Anna will likely prevail on her sexual harassment claim because the one incident will be sufficient to establish liability, particularly because the offender retaliated against her by assigning less desirable duties and because the school failed to respond appropriately to that situation. Anna does not have a valid claim against the school for the damages she suffered from the initial stabbing or for her medical expenses necessitated by it because the risk to which she was exposed was no different from the types of risk she could have faced as a teacher more generally as long as female teachers were generally eligible for assignment to Saturday detention classes.While the harm she suffered was linked factually to her wrongful assignment to the class, the limit of liability for that assignment will be within the retaliation claim only. She would only recover for the harm if the school only assigned large male teachers (for example) to detention classes or if she had been harmed by an assignment whose nature made the risk of proximate harm foreseeable. Finally, under the Affordable Care Act, the school wrongfully denied insurance coverage by virtue of a pre-existing condition.

Provided she was not (initially) rated poorly because the assignment to teach math was not directly harmful to her career, the school will not be liable for that. However, (as mentioned), the school will be liable for wrongfully terminating her afterwards. Lisa may also claim liability in deliberate (or negligent) infliction of emotional harm as a common law tort because of the manner in which she was fired. Conceivably, if that claim succeeds, the school could be liable for the related damages such as the medical harm suffered by her son and the economic damages incurred by Lisa as a (proximate) result. The school may disclaim liability and argue that any such claim must be limited to Forester, but that defense will likely be overcome by virtue of vicarious liability, the doctrine of respondeat superior, and by virtue of the negligence in hiring a foreseeably abusive individual in….....