Introduction: Case:  Tiffany Murray, a Bonners Ferry police officer, claims that the police department created a hostile work environment which resulted in sexual harassment.  Officer Murray is claiming that the police department was aware of the intentional and/or gross negligence act by two other officers, SGT Lunde and Deputy Chief Joel Minor.  She has brought to the attention of her superiors false allegations made by SGT Lunde regarding her faulty equipment and her reasons for working overtime.  Officer Murray also made allegations of SGT Lunde looking through her hiring file and completing an internal affairs investigation on her, which is a violation of the Police Department’s policy.  Officer Murray also made claims that when she complained to Deputy Chief Minor regarding SGT Lunde's behavior he allegedly stated he would protect her from SGT Lunde in exchange for sexual favors of a prurient and unwanted nature.  This allegation alleges that Deputy Chief Minor engaged in unwanted sexual advances.  Officer Murray is seeking $500,000 for the wrongful actions taken by the City and its employees.  Issue: The issue in the case of the Bonners Ferry police officer and the alleged tort is whether or not a hostile work environment resulted in sexual harassment in the city police department. The court, in this situation, must determine if the alleged actions presented in the case are enough evidence to result in the claim of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a serious crime and could affect all of the parties in this case, including their jobs. In this case, School Resource Officer Tiffany Murray feels that here rights were violated and wants to seek and recover damages for those actions. The issue presented in the Bonners Ferry police officer case can be applied in a business managerial setting because all companies, as well as managers and employees, must abide by the rules set forth, not only by the company, but also by State and Federal laws not to participate in acts of sexual harassment. Rule(s): State Statutes/Rulings 1. Defamation: Defamation Per Se or Defamation in Iowa is any statement or publication that is in and of itself defamatory with the intent of ruining the plaintiff’s reputation, social standing, or fiscal well-being. Since the statements are in and of themselves defamatory, the plaintiff (Officer Murray) does not have to prove damages, only that the statements were made to a third party. 1. Harassment: This is behavior which has the effect of humiliating, intimidating, or coercing someone through personal attack. It is behavior that will make someone uncomfortable or embarrassed, and cause emotional distress. The alleged actions of the Police officers and Deputy Chief, if proven true, would fall into the category of harassment. For the Deputy to allegedly overtly ignore these is negligent, nonfeasance, or even malfeasance when one takes into consideration the Quid Pro Quo assertion of the plaintiff. 1. Quid Pr.

1. Introduction:
Case: Tiffany Murray, a Bonners Ferry police officer, claims
that the police department created a hostile work environment
which resulted in sexual harassment. Officer Murray is
claiming that the police department was aware of the intentional
and/or gross negligence act by two other officers, SGT Lunde
and Deputy Chief Joel Minor. She has brought to the attention
of her superiors false allegations made by SGT Lunde regarding
her faulty equipment and her reasons for working overtime.
Officer Murray also made allegations of SGT Lunde looking
through her hiring file and completing an internal affairs
investigation on her, which is a violation of the Police
Department’s policy. Officer Murray also made claims that
when she complained to Deputy Chief Minor regarding SGT
Lunde's behavior he allegedly stated he would protect her from
SGT Lunde in exchange for sexual favors of a prurient and
unwanted nature. This allegation alleges that Deputy Chief
Minor engaged in unwanted sexual advances. Officer Murray is
seeking $500,000 for the wrongful actions taken by the City and
its employees.
Issue:
The issue in the case of the Bonners Ferry police officer and the
alleged tort is whether or not a hostile work environment
resulted in sexual harassment in the city police department. The
court, in this situation, must determine if the alleged actions
presented in the case are enough evidence to result in the claim
of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a serious crime and
could affect all of the parties in this case, including their jobs.
In this case, School Resource Officer Tiffany Murray feels that
here rights were violated and wants to seek and recover
damages for those actions. The issue presented in the Bonners
Ferry police officer case can be applied in a business
managerial setting because all companies, as well as managers
and employees, must abide by the rules set forth, not only by

2. the company, but also by State and Federal laws not to
participate in acts of sexual harassment.
Rule(s):
State Statutes/Rulings
1. Defamation:
Defamation Per Se or Defamation in Iowa is any statement or
publication that is in and of itself defamatory with the intent of
ruining the plaintiff’s reputation, social standing, or fiscal well-
being. Since the statements are in and of themselves
defamatory, the plaintiff (Officer Murray) does not have to
prove damages, only that the statements were made to a third
party.
1. Harassment:
This is behavior which has the effect of humiliating,
intimidating, or coercing someone through personal attack. It is
behavior that will make someone uncomfortable or embarrassed,
and cause emotional distress. The alleged actions of the Police
officers and Deputy Chief, if proven true, would fall into the
category of harassment. For the Deputy to allegedly overtly
ignore these is negligent, nonfeasance, or even malfeasance
when one takes into consideration the Quid Pro Quo assertion of
the plaintiff.
1. Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment:This form of harassment is
often prohibited as a matter of criminal law (the crime in some
cases is labeled "abuse of power"), as a form of sex
discrimination or as a violation of labor or tort law. In the case
it is alleged that Deputy Chief Minor’s actions constitute this
type of Harassment. The employer can be found guilty of Quid
pro quo harassment if it occurs. In this case the alleged offer
for protection in exchange for sexual favors would constitute
Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment
Federal Statutes/Rulings

3. 1. Hostile Work Environment Harassment:
According to Federal Law, a hostile environment can result
from the unwelcome conduct of supervisors, co-workers,
customers, contractors, or anyone else with whom the victim
interacts on the job, and the unwelcome conduct renders the
workplace atmosphere intimidating, hostile, or offensive. In
this case the alleged offenses, if true, of the officers and the
Deputy would fall into that of promoting a hostile work
environment.
1. Responsible Parties
Under federal law, an employer is legally responsible to a
victimized employee for sexual harassment by a supervisor with
authority over that employee in certain instances.
When the harassment leads to a tangible employment action,
such as demotion, decreased compensation, significantly
different work assignments, or termination, the employer's
liability is absolute; and when there has been no tangible
employment action, the employer is liable.
Analysis:
Deputy Chief Joel Minor had a duty to his employee Officer
Murray and the City to investigate the allegations made by
Murray regarding the behavior of SGT Lunde. Deputy Chief
Minor acted unprofessional and uninterested in these
allegations. Allegedly Deputy Chief Minor responded to the
assertions with Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment overt actions.
Officer Murray contends that Minor offered protection from
Lund in exchange for sexual favors of a prurient nature that
were unwanted, offensive and lewd. Quid Pro Quo is defined
from the Cornell law online library as "an exchange of acts or
things of approximately equal value." As in most allegations
this was an offered exchange of sexual favors for protection
from sexual harassment, in itself a form of sexual harassment.
Conclusion:
If all allegations are correct then one can assume the case

4. will……
Financial PlanNew York City Financial PlanOctober 2007($ in
millions)RevenuesFY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY
2011TaxesGeneral Property Tax$ 12,984$ 14,100$ 15,186$
16,171Other Taxes22,21521,45622,22122,696Discretionary
Transfers (1)546- 0- 0- 0Tax Audit Revenue659559560560Tax
Reduction Program(68)(239)(283)(301)Subtotal: Taxes$
36,336$ 35,876$ 37,684$ 39,126Miscellaneous
Revenue6,0635,0845,1015,134Unrestricted Intergovernmental
Aid340340340340Less: Intra-City
Revenue(1,457)(1,367)(1,368)(1,368)Disallowances Against
Categorical Grants(15)(15)(15)(15)Subtotal: City Funds$
41,267$ 39,918$ 41,742$ 43,217Other Categorical
Revenues1,0671,0071,0121,014Inter-Fund
Revenues436411403398Total City Funds and Inter-Fund
Revenues$ 42,770$ 41,336$ 43,157$ 44,629Federal
Categorical Grants5,6065,3735,3585,344State Categorical
Grants10,95811,42412,28912,733Total Revenues$ 59,334$
58,133$ 60,804$ 62,706ExpendituresPersonal ServiceSalary
and Wages$ 21,189$ 22,323$ 24,082$
25,353Pensions5,7286,2656,3186,404Fringe
Benefits6,4066,8157,2827,795Subtotal: Personal Service$
33,323$ 35,403$ 37,682$ 39,552Other Than Personal
ServiceMedical Assistance5,7975,6025,7565,916Public
Assistance1,1871,1871,1871,187Pay-As-You-Go
Capital100200200200All Other
(1)18,04417,54717,97118,376Subtotal: Other Than Personal
Service$ 25,128$ 24,536$ 25,114$ 25,679General
Obligation, Lease & MAC Debt Service
(1,2,3)3,8373,8964,2475,002FY 2007 Budget Stabilization &
Discretionary Transfers (1)(4,052)- 0- 0- 0FY 2008 Budget

5. Stabilization (2)2,255(2,255)- 0- 0FY 2009 Budget Stabilization
(3)- 0350(350)- 0General Reserve300300300300Subtotal$
60,791$ 62,230$ 66,993$ 70,533Less: Intra-City
Expenditures(1,457)(1,367)(1,368)(1,368)Total Expenditures$
59,334$ 60,863$ 65,625$ 69,165Gap To Be Closed$ -$
(2,730)$ (4,821)$ (6,459)(1) FY 2007 Budget Stabilization
and Discretionary Transfers total $4.663 billion, including
prepayments of subsidies of $639 million,Budget Stabilization
of $3.313 billion, lease debt service of $100 million, $65
million in debt retirement and a TFA grants whichincreases FY
2008 revenues by $546 million.(2) FY 2008 Budget
Stabilization totals $2.255 billion.(3) FY 2009 Budget
Stabilization totals $350 million.