My Argument

I do agree with the ruling on the Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders case. If Suders was truly being sexually harassed by three of her supervisors she should have followed the internal procedures established by the employer to report sexual harassment claims. Every corporation has these procedures in visible sight for all employees to have access to. When Suders did report the sexual harassment to Equal Employment Opportunity Officer she also educated Suders to report the claim the correct way but Suders was unhappy with that the officers answers so she never filed the claim. Due to Sunders never filing the sexual harassment to the correct people the sexual harassment continued. Until Sunders quit, Suders’ resigning from her job could have been avoided. The big issue at hand is the fact that Suders never gave her company a chance to stop her supervisors from sexually her. Which told the court that if there was an issue it only Suders knew which was not enough evidence to hold the Pennsylvania State Police at fault. I do feel that it is a very sad Nancy Drew Suders had to endure any type of sexual harassment from her superior no one should have to go though that. In the case a problem can not get fixed if the problem is never known to be fixed. I believe that’s why the eight out of nine judges ruled in the favor Pennsylvania State Police.I personally work at a major corporation and have never given thought to the internal procedures to report sexual harassment claims. I do know where I can find any information that I need about how to report any harassment that is affecting my job. After researching the Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders case it has shown me how important it is to follow a corporation’s policies and procedures especially when it comes to filing harassment claim.