Loretta worked for Minute Dry Cleaners as a cashier, and also did ironing when extra help was needed. Soon after she was hired, her boss, John, began to make suggestive comments to her. He complemented Loretta on her clothes and her looks. Several times, when they were in the store alone, John cornered Loretta and told her that she was driving him crazy, and that she just had to date him. Loretta

Question

told John that she already seeing someone and backed away. John cornered her again. He told her that he had waited long enough, and that if she wanted to keep her job she was going to have to "put out." He grabbed her arm, but she got away to the counter. She told John to keep away from her. He laughed, and asked her what she was going to do. He said he knew she needed the job, because she was fired from her previous jobs for drug problems. If she didn't get along with him, he would fire her and tell people it was because she came to work stoned. Loretta quit the next day. She filed a complaint against John with the local EEO office. John told EEO he fired Loretta was because of her drinking on the job. He referred them to Loretta's past work record which showed a drug problem. Loretta insisted that John harassed her and that she had not been drinking while at Minute. If a court applied the standard from Harris v. Forklift Systems, to Loretta's case, what would the outcome be?
a. cause her case to be dismissed
b. cause Minute to win because they had no notice of John's offensive behavior c. perhaps weaken her case against the owner but not against John
d. cause John's actions to be interpreted as creating a hostile or abusive work environment e. cause her to lose due to failure to produce preponderance of the evidence

Answer 1

d