Issue One: Validity of the Citizen Report for Disciplinary Action against Officer Rowdy
Summary of Facts
A week after a rowdy drinking expedition, a citizen’s report is made to the Sherriff against one woman, Officer Rowdy, who was drinking amongst several colleagues some of whom happen to be her seniors. The accusation is for conduct that does not befit a police officer including the use of foul, lewd, and seemingly disgusting language. It is worthy of notice that many officers are involved and most of them use abusive language. The report, however, singles out the Jewish woman in the group as the only culprit. Based on the jokes she made and the names she was called including Jap, it was easy for everyone on the bar to have known that she was a Jew.
Issues Raised
Is the report made in good faith? Is it fair and justified to be considered based on the fact that it relates to a moral and/or ethical issue and not per se a legal issue? Has the accuser come to the Sherriff in good faith as the credibility of the accuser will determine the fate of a third party; the officer? Is this a case of a member of the public playing the role of a good citizen or another ethnic bigot perpetuating the vice through filing a report with the Sherriff?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Arguments Presented by Each Side
There are two sides to this specific issue. These are the citizen accuser on the one side and Officer Rowdy on the other. The citizen will argue that the accusation is valid since Officer Rowdy did use derogatory language and made crude jokes during the drinking spree. The Officer on the other side will indicate that she did make the lewd jokes, but so did everyone else in the bar. Indeed, her jokes were a response to other jokes made against her by her male counterparts which were equally lewd and even culturally and religiously discriminatory to her as a Jewish woman.
Application of Law
The accusation itself clearly infringes on the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964that outlaws any form of discrimination based on gender, race, or religion 1 . The provisions of this law were then introduced into the constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) 2 . Under these laws, no one in the USA shall be discriminated against based on their ethnicity, gender, cultural affiliation, or religion.
Recommendation
No direct adverse action can legally be taken against Officer Rowdy as a direct consequence of and based purely on the accusation or the words of the accuser.
Reasons
The Confrontation Clause as included in the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution is based on the Common Law position that the accuser is as important as the accusation made against the individual (Gray, 2015). The instant scenario may not present a criminal case but it will still read to major adverse consequences for the accused, including the denial of a promotion. The fact that the accuser lacks credibility at best and might even be a bigot affects the credibility of the accusations themselves. This citizen accuser had a valid accusation when indicating that law enforcement officials used lewd language in a public place. However, indicating that the most disgusting person within the group was “the Jewish Woman” coupled with the fact that the accusation was made a week after the event raises credibility questions about the accuser. If the issue ends up in litigation, the department might credibly stand accused of suborning bigotry. This would turn most juries against the department with adverse ramifications.
Core Values
The core value of community under the St. Leo core values provides inter alia for the creation of “ mutual trust and respect to create socially responsible environments.” Bigotry based on racial, cultural, or religious groups flies in the face of this core value. Integrity also demands that the Sherriff do the right thing above all, not just what she believes is expected of her.
Bibliography
Gray, A. (2015). The Right to Confrontation in Common Law Systems. New Criminal Law Review: In International and Interdisciplinary Journal , 18 (1), 129-165
Issue Number Two: Racial and Religious Discrimination Claim
Summary of Facts
The facts under the instant issue are based both on the defense that Officer Rowdy made when confronted with the issue canvassed above alongside the entirety of the case study. Officer Rowdy argues that her lewd language is a defense mechanism against the religious discrimination she has always faced at her place of work. Instead of taking offense, she a play along which is what she was doing at the bar on the material night . Further, facts from the entirety of the case study include that when she was hired, other officers shunned her. When they eventually accepted her as one of them, she was determined to retain that position. This is an administrative issue and even if Officer Rowdy is firm that she does not want to make accusations in fear of losing her job, the Sherriff is bound to administratively consider that racial and religious discrimination is taking place within the department.
Issues Raised
Is there racial and cultural discrimination going on at the department, or is it just some camaraderie jokes? What can be done to extenuate the situation if indeed it exists? Is the Sheriff liable for the said racial discrimination in her department?
Arguments Presented by Each Side
There are two sides to this issue, the first being the passive accuser of Officer Rowdy and the other, her male colleagues. Officer Rowdy will argue that being shunned by her colleagues when she joined the force, being called a Jap and a dirty Jew among other epithets amounts to discrimination. Further, being laughed at when she takes days off for religious reasons also amounts to discrimination. The male colleagues will argue that Officer Rowdy is one of the boys. She takes as many insults as she gives and are all taken on a light note.
Application of Law
At the Federal level, the applicable law is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 3 , and the Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) 4 . Further to the same, there are the state law provisions of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 5 . Under these laws, any form of discrimination based on gender or culture is strictly prohibited, more so at the place of work. The name Jap means Jewish-American princess and fall under gender, racial, and religious discrimination. Under labor laws, if the Sherriff knows about gender, racial and cultural discrimination but elects not to do anything, she is liable vicariously for further discrimination.
Recommendation
Disciplinary action should not be taken upon any of the male officers who have been indirectly accused. However, strict and elaborate rules about the subject of racial discrimination need to be put in place and enforced to the later.
Reasons
As argued above, disciplinary action requires a complainant who will stand as an accuser. In this scenario, the accuser would be Officer Rowdy who is unwilling to play the part. Further, with the accusation against Officer Rowdy being deemed as lacking credibility as indicated above, it would seem unfair to punish only one part of the same chain of events. However, the moment a realization is made that discrimination is happening in a place of work, an automatic obligation to act emerges (Chamallas, 2014) . In this scenario, duty demands that the Sherriff at the very least ensures that any form of discrimination within the department ends forthwith.
Core Values
The core value of Responsible Stewardship under the St. Leo University takes precedence in the instant scenario. The Sherriff acts as a responsible steward for the wellbeing of the members of staff operating under her. Respect and a harmonious community are among the expected results from when the recommendations above are implemented.
Bibliography
Chamallas, M. (2014). Two Very Different Stories: Vicarious Liability Under Tort and Title VII Law. Ohio St. LJ , 75 , 1315
Issue Number Three: Sexual Harassment Claim
Summary of Facts
This is a fresh issue that stems out of the conversation between Officer Brown and the Sherriff and is also supported by the facts of the case as presented in the case study. It also defers exponentially from the two cases above based on three grounds. First, it relates to active not passive sexual harassment against the said Officer Rowdy. Secondly, the said harassment was undertaken by a member of management staff against a junior member of staff who falls directly under the management staff member accused. Finally, the Sherriff herself is directly and vicariously liable as she is part of the decision-making organ for the decision that the sexual harassment is based. The summary of facts is that Officer Rowdy’s immediate supervisors demanded a sexual favor to ensure that the Officer is promoted to detective.
Issues Raised
Was a sexual favor demanded by a supervisor to ensure that Officer Rowdy gets promoted? If yes, what action should be taken against the perpetrator? Can this action be taken, even when the Officer involved did not make a formal complaint in time?
Arguments Presented by Each Side
The supposed complainant, Officer Rowdy knows that her job is on the line and is expected to argue that the matter should be buried or allowed to rest. She knows that if a case ensues because of her, resentment will be augmented against her to her detriment. The accused can only deny the allegations since there is no decent , legal or plausible explanation for his conduct.
Applicable Laws
Current case law is very strict on the subject of sexual harassment and is seen to actively tilt in favor of women employees in most scenarios 6 . In any legal process, fairness is paramount but when it comes to issues of sexual harassment, precedents indicate that fairness must be defined as giving the benefit of doubt to the female complainant. Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 7 also addresses the subject of sexual harassment for both private and public employers. It insists on the protection of female workers from being sexually harassed by their bosses. Finally, there is a strict vicarious liability against any employer who does not act in the face of sexual harassment claims against employees.
Recommendation
This must be handled formally from the word go. A formal inquiry must be made even if the complainant does not demand for one. Investigations must be done to get to the bottom of the matter with the right to be heard by the accused supervisor being given. Upon conclusion, if the supervisor is found culpable, he must be summarily dismissed and a form of compensation given to the victim (Wilson & Pender, 2017). Secondary steps such a prosecution for abuse of office should also be considered.
Reasons
A senior officer who demands a sexual favor to do his duty by a junior officer has no business either being a senior officer or being an officer at all. The issue on which the sexual demand was made also involves the Sherriff thus placing the entire Sherriff’s department at risk of civil liability for the tort done. Summary dismissal might ensue from the proceeding, which also means that everything must be done in an above-board manner including the right for the accused party to be heard in defense. However, if the accusations are true, nothing less than a summary dismissal can save the Sherriff’s office from extreme liability for condoning sexual harassment.
Core Values
The core value of Responsible Stewardship under the St. Leo University is primary in this issue. The Sherriff has a duty to protect the department from sexual predators. Firm action in the case will also enforce respect and forge a harmonious community.
Bibliography
Wilson, J., & Pender, K. (2017). Employment law: Risky business: The legal hazards of relationships in the workplace. Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory , (245), 20-25
