I'LL TELL YOUR HUSBAND!

Background

Schlage Lock Company posted a "Sexual Harassment Policy" notice on the bulletin boards in compliance with state and Federal laws on the subject. This policy upholds the idea that employees are to enjoy a workplace free from sexual harassment in any form. The policy also states that conduct violating the rules may result in termination.

Since adopting the policy, Schlage has dismissed several employees for violations. These include both managerial and nonmanagerial level workers. The majority of the cases were for visual and oral harassment, with the ultimate objective being sexual favors for the harasser.

In June, $1985,$ MaryAnne McGregory was given a note which another employee had found in the female locker room. The note read: "Did you know MaryAnne is sleeping with her boss?" McGregory took the note to her shop steward, Lila Almond, the Grievant for this case. They then took the note to Marge Overstreet, the Department Supervisor. Overstreet told McGregory she could do nothing because of lack of proof as$.$to the notes author, but to

contact the Personnel Department if anything else happened.

McGregory took the note home to show her husband and children. She then put it away in a drawer.

In August, McGregory was going through the mail at her home and found a letter addressed to her husband. She noticed a similarity between the writing on the envelope and the writing on the note. Upon closer examination she decided the handwriting was the same on both documents. She then opened the letter, which insinuated she was having an affair with her boss.

McGregory took both papers to the Personnel Manager the following day. The manager recognized the handwriting as being that of Almond and decided to take the matter to other company officials. Schlage hired two handwriting experts to examine both documents, along with handwriting samples from Almond's work from a period of $20$ years. Both concluded that Almond had indeed written both the note and the letter attempting to defame McGregory.

Schlage officials then notified Almond of her termination and asked her to return any company property and clean out her office. She has, in return, filed this grievance for reinstatement and payment of all back salary and benefits on the grounds she was unjustly terminated.

The Company's Position

Schlage has consistently upheld a policy of intolerance in cases of sexual harassment. As such, they have been in compliance with both State and Federal laws requiring a workplace for employees which is free from harassment. Should Schlage veer from its course in this matter, it would be exposing itself to substantial liability.

Based on expert testimony and evidence given by the two handwriting experts, Schlage officials believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that Almond wrote the letter and the note to McGregory. Because of this, they feel justified in terminating Almond.

As motivation for Almond's actions, they cite McGregory's choice to not actively support union procedures. She has worked with three machines while the current union demands only two per employee. She has also spent time cleaning around her work area, which is prohibited by the union. Finally, McGregory has refused to sign grievances originated by the union.

Almond's Position

Almond's defense in this grievance rests strongly on her past work record and her current position with the company. She points to the fact that she has maintained a clean work record for $32$ years. She is a $57$ year$-$old mother, grandmother, and great grandmother. Additionally, she took the first note to the Supervisor, along with McGregory. She also contends that company officials have presumed her guilt from the beginning.

She also holds that the company has built a case of harassment from nothing. She states that she has never had a conflict of any type with McGregory, thus she has no motive for such action. Her final argument against the company and for reinstatement is that the note and letter do not constitute sexual harassment toward

McGregory. Other cases which have taken place at Schlage have been direct, personal affronts by the harasser. Almond claims this incident is in no way similar.

$32.$ I'LL TELL YOUR HUSBAND

$1.$ Do "hate letters" constitute harassment? Explain you opinion.

$2.$ If Almond is the perpetrator, could she have chosen another area of attack and been allowed to remain with the company?

$3.$ How would you rule in this case? Explain.