Dissent

Judge Clarence Thomas Wrote a dissent he was the judge who didn’t vote with the majority. Judge Thomas believed that it was the job of the supervisors so show better judgment and charter on there end. He also believed that Suders didn’t have adequate time to respond to the right authorities and by her confiding the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer that should have equaled the same as her filing a sexual harassment claim. Judge Thomas made a good point but due to the company policies and procures that were not followed the majority voted for Pennsylvania State Police.

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.

Rule of law

The rule of law is an employee should follow the internal procedures established by the employer to report sexual harassment claims. If the there is still nothing done for the employee then the employee has the right to take the employer to court with the right documentation and win the suit against the employer . If the employee quits the job before following internal procedures established by the employer to report sexual harassment claims, they still have the right to take the employer to court but in return the employer has the right to use the fact that the sexual harassment never got reported to safe guard themselves in court. Which means the employer will win the case due to if an issue is never reported about at work it can not be resolved. In return the employer has to make the internal procedures reporting any type of harassment clear to employee at time of hire or before first complete day of work.

Reasoning of the court

The reasoning of the court was that Suders had the civil right to take the Pennsylvania State Police to suit without following the internal procedures. As the Pennsylvania State Police had the civil rights to bring the fact that she didn’t file a harassment complaint to safe guard them in court.
“In an 8-to-1 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court ruled that an employee faced with a situation in which a "reasonable person ... would have felt compelled to resign" could bring suit even if she had not filed a report with the employer before resigning. Her employer, however, could use her failure to file a report; along with evidence of the safeguards it had in place to prevent harassment, in its defense. If it could prove that she had not attempted to prevent the harassment, and that the safeguards in place would have prevented it if she had, the employer would not be liable.”


Citations

The Oyez Project, Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders , 542 U.S. 129 (2004)

Decision of the court

The decision of the court was in favor of the Pennsylvania State Police it was a vote 8-1. The reason being the judges had to answer the question if an employer makes the workplace unbearable though sexual harassment and the employee quits without filing a complaint, can the employee take the employer to suit? The answer was yes, the employee can bring suit to the former employer but the employer has the right to use the fact that the employee did not use the internal procedures to report the harassment to safe guard their self in court.

Citations
The Oyez Project, Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004)

Issue of the case

The issues of the Pennsylvania State Police v, Suders broke down into civil rights and sex discrimination in the work place. Nancy Suders claimed she was sexually harassed by three of her supervisors at the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) over a five month period. “Suders contacted PSP’s Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, Virginia Smith-Elliott, expecting help, but neither woman followed up on the conversation…Suders contacted Smith-Elliott again, reporting harassment, shortly before she quit; Smith- Elliott told her to file a grievance without offering her any additional assistance.” Suder quit shortly after these complaints and then sued the PSP “…alleging that she had been sexually harassed and constructively discharged, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” In the Business Law book sexual harassment is defined as “Unwelcome sexual attention, whether verbal or physical, that affects an employee’s job condition or creates a hostile working environment.” Suders had did not use the procedures set up by the state police to deal with sexual harassment because of that she could not bring suit unless the police had taken a "tangible employment action" that changed her employment status. A Third Circuit Court of Appeals panel overturned the district judge's decision they stated said that the harassment at work was so bad for Suders that she had no choice but to quit. “While the police had not fired Suders, they had been directly responsible for her resignation and therefore could not use her failure to file a report as a defense.”

Citations

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-95.ZS.html
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2003/penvsud
http://www.whiteandwilliams.com/CM/NewsAlerts/NewsAlerts350.asp

What I think about the Supreme Court

I feel that the supreme courts should have balance in them. The Supreme Court makes major decisions that effect the life’s of billions of people every day because of that there should be many points of view for so everyone has an equal chance to be represented. America is view as the worlds melting which means that we have a little bit of every culture, race, and belief living in our country. With only nine seats available on the Supreme Court I know it is impossible to represent everyone of those people fairly. We can make the Supreme Court appointed judges have of all different backgrounds. The norm for the Supreme Court judge use to be older white male. Slowly this is changing we are seeing African Americans and Hispanic males and female appointed judges. I believe the more ethnicities we have sitting on the Supreme Court the better they can represent America and make a real decision that represents our people. As well as sexes on the bench there should be five women and four men just due to the fact that there are more women than men in America. Someone might say that with so many differences and points of views how would the judges on the court ever agree on anything? The answer would be they would not always have to agree you don’t have to always agree with someone to respect their opinion. They would also agree on law and what the basic principles of right and wrong are. They would bring their backgrounds, beliefs, and culture with them. As I said before that is what America is a melting pot of all those things and to have a every judge on the Supreme Court with a different one of them would bring a refreshing look and feel to the American Supreme court system.