Question Number 1
Title vii Claim
According to Title VII, it is unlawful to "discriminate against any individual with respect to his/her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Here Ted refused to promote Molly because she is female, which is clearly the violation of Title VII. Ted clearly tells that she cannot be an agent because she is a woman saying that she is not the agent material which is clearly discrimination on the basis of gender/sex and violation of Title VII.
Sexual Harassment Claim
Sexual harassment at work occurs whenever unwelcome conduct on the basis of gender affects a person's job, It is defined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal (like Ted telling Molly of-color joke using off-color language) all falls within sexual harassment. Here in the given case Ted refused to provide promotion to Molly because he believes that she is not an agent material and also says that she will never be an agent because she is female.
In my opinion, Ted behavior is clearly unlawful sexual harassment which is also referred to as hostile environment. A hostile environment can result from the gender-based unwelcome conduct of supervisors, like discussing sexual activities; telling off-color jokes; and using crude and offensive language. Therefore it is logical and reasonable to say that whatever Ted is doing is completely a sexual harassment.
Here Ted behavior is severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile environment, because he (Ted) always makes jokes about women being inferior to men, using off-color language. Here the frequency of the unwelcome discriminatory conduct is high. Therefore, there are enough evidences to prove the Molly’s claim of sexual harassment. Following are the reason which justifies that Ted behavior is clearly a sexual harassment:
Ø Because it is verbal behavior of a sexual nature.
Ø Because this behavior is being initiated by only one of the parties (Ted) who has power over the other (Molly).
Ø Ted conduct makes the Molly’s job unpleasant.
Equal Protection Clause Claim
According to the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia the Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitutions, provides that "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that “all man and women are created equal” by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states. But while relating this law with that of the given case of Molly vs. Ted I don’t think that there is sufficient evidence to prove that there is the violation of equal protection clause.
Question Number 2
This is clearly a Quid Pro Quo Harassment because here in this question Ted asks sexual favors from Molly only then he will promote her to the higher level position. For example this is like "you do something for me and I'll do something for you" type of exchange or demanding sexual favors in exchange for a promotion. This occurred because a job benefit is directly tied to an employee (Ted) submitting to unwelcome sexual advances. Quid Pro Quo harassment occurs when expectations (promotions) are based on an employee submission to or rejection of sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other behavior of a sexual nature. These cases involve tangible actions that adversely affect the conditions of work.
The Stars Worldwide is liable because Ted (one of the employee of stars worldwide) responsible for the sexual harassment, unless the Stars Worldwide can prove that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct sexually harassing behavior and that the employee (Ted) unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the Stars Worldwide.
Halbert, J.D., Terry, Ingulli, ESQ., Elaine, (2006). Law And Ethics In The Business Environment : South Western Cengage Learning.