Brief outline hardage v. cbs broadcasting inc case

1. HARDAGE v. CBS BROADCASTING INC
Facts:
Hugh Hardage worked for CBS in Seattle. His supervisor was Patty Dean. Her supervisor was Kathy
Sparks. Hardage claimed he was subject to sexual harassment by Sparks. Others testified that there was
a lot of sexual banter between the two. Hardage claimed that Sparks suggested sex several times, but
that he said no. When he complained to Dean, she contacted higher-level personnel. A representative
from human resources, Falcone, talked to Hardage about the matter. Hardage told him of the problem
in general, but did not provide any specifics. Falcone said he would handle the matter, but Hardage said
he would handle it himself. They spoke two weeks later and Hardage again said he would handle it.
Dean was critical of Hardage’s work performance. He resigned and sued CBS and Sparks for sexual
harassment and retaliation, contending that his negative evaluation was triggered by his complaints
aboutthe harassment.
Issue:
The issue is about the sexual harassment of an employee by his supervisor. The US employment law
under Title VII is associated with the case as it allows employers to avoid harassment liability that does
not involve adverse employmentactionsuchastermination
Rule:
The US Supreme Court decided that CBS must use affirmative defense in this case. The court affirmed
the dismissal of plaintiff andacceptance claimsunderTitle VII.The courtruledinthe favorof employer.
Application:
The decision of the court was based on the US employment law of Title VII which allows employers to
avoid sexual harassment liability if the employee fails to take benefit of employer’s preventive
measures. Hardage was familiar with the anti-discrimination policy of CBS, still he did not involve the
company in the matter. While making decision that CBS could avoid liability, the court relied on the fact
that Hardage was unsuccessful inestablishingafactual disagreementwithregardtoaffirmativedefense
Conclusion:
Hardage claims he was subject to constructive discharge. That claim fails. His employer offered more
than once to help deal with his claims of sexual harassment, but he failed to take advantage of the
assistance, so he cannot assert constructive discharge against his employer. Hardage unreasonably
failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities, so the employer had an affirmative
defense. There was no showing that Hardage’s negative work evaluation by his supervisorwas related to
hisharassmentclaims.