Sexual Harassment Legal Case Study Research Paper

Legal Brief

McCurdy v. Arkansas State Police, 375 F. 3 762 (8th Cir. 2004)

Type of Action

The case covered in this legal brief was the case of an employee of the Arkansas State Police, that being McCurdy, filing an action against the State of Arkansas in the form of the Arkansas State Police, that being her employer. Ms. McCurdy was trying to hold the Arkansas State Police liable for the sexual harassment of her supervisor. The case in this legal brief was argued before the United States Eight Circuit Court of Appeals (Leagle, 2014).

Facts of the Case

Jamie McCurdy, while being an employee of the Arkansas State Police, was subjected to about an hour of sexual harassment. The harassment in question was explicitly banned and disallowed as a matter of policy with the Arkansas State Police. On the Friday in which the harassment occurred, Sergeant Hall (McCurdy's supervisor) asked her where her uniform was and also stated that if it was up to him, her uniform would be a "bra and panties." He then touched and twirled McCurdy's hair and asked her if she had any "black" in her. She rejected the advances from Hill and then found a way to leave the room and report the conduct to another office. Upon elevating the details of the event to Sergeant Garner (the highest ranking person on duty) it was decided that the McCurdy and Hill should remain separated for the duration of the weekend until this matter could be sorted out and the appropriate action could be taken.The matter was eventually referred to Internal Affairs rather than being handled internally by that particular group of people. Hall was eventually put on probation, demoted and assigned to a position in which he would have no conduct with McCurdy. However, he was also required to get a psychological evaluation to determine if he was even fit for duty given what he had done. They tried to terminate Hall but it was later overturned. It also came to light that McCurdy had prior harassment that she did not report and thus the police department could not react to it properly and timely given the absence of a complaining witness (IntroLaw, 2014).

Contentions of the Parties

McCurdy asserted that she was subject to a hostile work environment and constant sexual harassment and thus the Arkansas State Policy should be held liable for not controlling and properly punishing the employee. However, the police department argued that they were not able to react as quickly as they would have liked because McCurdy did not diligently report and detail the harassment until it was well under way. As such, the police department asserted that they could not deal with something that they were not aware of and thus should not be….....