Legal Reasoning and Research

...

frequent exchanges between herself and the pilots, the pilots were still terminated. With the provided evidence, was gender the cause for termination of the pilots or was the termination strictly based on the lower courts ‘ruling of sexual harassment.

This case is a civil action. When an individual or organization unsuccessfully fulfilled its legal duty to the plaintiff then the plaintiff may seek the court for punitive damages to fulfill the duty resulting in a civil action (Moffat, 2016). Hawn, the plaintiff sought the court to provide compensation for being discriminated against because of gender and being terminated because of the sexual harassment suit brought against them. The cause for action was Hawn, the plaintiff suing Exe. Jet Mgmt., the defendant on the grounds for gender discrimination based on Title IIV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Hawn v. Exec Jet Mgmt., 2008). Hawn proposed the reason for his termination was not based on the accusations bought against him but that he was male. Hawn’s accuser was suspected of participating in the same act of sexual harassment but was accosted with the same form of reprimand that Hawn received. According to Hawn v. Exec Jet Mgmt. (2008), the defendant claimed no further actions were taken because the accusing party was female. Being that only Hawn and his coconspirators were terminated and not the female flight attendant, Hawn sued Exe Jet Mgmt. with the grounds of gender discrimination.

The reason this case is not a criminal action is because no felonious or misdemeanor crime was committed. A criminal action results in an individual or organization been accused of crime or indicted based upon evidence (Moffat, 2014). When it has been determined that a crime was committed the individual is either prosecuted by the state if it is a state crime or prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office if the individual is charged with a federal crime (Moffat, 2014). In a federal crime the individual has the option to plead, guilty, not guilty, or not contest. A guilty plea is an admission of committing the crime. A not guilty plea is no admission to the crime. A no contest plea is acknowledgement that the crime was committed but the defendant is neither confirming or denying the admission of guilt. Once the decision of guilt is determined the individual is sentenced (i.e. incarnation, restitution, etc.)

The court’s determination based on the ruling of the issue and factors contributing to the cased is called a holding. The portion of a legal opinion that is necessary to conclude a case determines the holding or decision (Ohio State Bar Association, 2016). A holding is the ruling of court that is raised in an official proceeding to rule on a point of law. In the case of Hawn v. Exec Jet Mgmt., 2008 the appeals court affirmed the holding or decision.

When the appeals court affirms a decision it means the higher court takes the same stand of the lower court who originally made the decision (Ohio State Bar Association, 2016). Even if the trial judge did to come to a conclusion the court of appeals may utilize dissimilar reasoning to affirm the decision of the trial court. In this instance the final decision matches the trial court’s decision. Basically, the appeals court states that it affirms the lower court’s ruling.

The jurisdiction of the case has raised sound reasoning to review the sexual harassment policies and codes of conduct related to current employment. In this particular case, the female flight attendant was said to have participated in the inappropriate sexually explicit banter between herself and several of the other pilots. As a result of their behavior, the flight attendant filed for a sexual harassment suit and the pilots filed a counter claim based on gender discrimination. In the current employment both parties should be responsible if there is an exchange of banter regardless of how frequent or infrequent it occurs.

Hawn vs Exec Jet Mgmt. raises questions about the professionalism of the environment in the case and also in my current employer. Certain conversations or gestures may seem harmless until one or more parties becomes offended by the information being relayed. Revamping the standard on how professional conversations in the workplace should be conducted will help minimize claims or instances of sexual harassment as relayed in this case. The inappropriate sexually explicit banter seemed to be commonplace as to why the accusations took so long to become prevalent. The same standards should be reviewed at my current employment. Frequents conversations of sexual nature that may appear harmless to others may not be as harmless at they seem resulting in legal issues that can stem from more than one legal stance depending upon the involved parties.

Overall, even though the gender discrimination was not affirmed in this case, the process of how the sexual harassment was handled on both parties should still be considered. Both parties participated in the sexually explicit banter but only one party was severely reprimanded which resulted in termination. In my current employment the code of conduct should be update to not only include initiators but also participators. Even though the grounds for sexual harassment were valid the frequency of the occurrences may have been minimized or even eliminated if both parties were held responsible from the beginning. With responsibility been place on all parties from the initiation of the sexually explicit banter the accusations for gender discrimination and the frequency of events would have been minimized or eliminated.

References

Hawn v. Exec Jet Mgmt., 546 F. Supp. 2d 703, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20460 (D.Ariz., 2008)

Moffat, J. C. (2014). Chapter 8: Private Civil Lawsuits Based on EMTALA. In , EMTALA

Answer Book (pp. 8-1-8-22). Aspen Publishers Inc.

Moffat, J. C. (2016). Chapter 8: Private Civil Lawsuits Based on EMTALA. EMTALA Answer

Book, 1-28.

Ohio State Bar Association. (2016, May 22). OSBA | appellate judges review trial court

decisions. Retrieved from

https://www.ohiobar.org/forpublic/resources/lawyoucanuse/pages/lawyoucanuse-

448.aspx