Case Study Analysis: Ellingsworth v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company

This case study analyzes Ellingsworth v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., where an employee faced repeated gender stereotyping and harassment, including comments about her appearance and sexual orientation, leading to a hostile work environment. The supervisor's actions and the company's failure to intervene violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects against discrimination based on sex. The employee was constructively discharged after enduring a year of harassment, and the court ruled in her favor, highlighting the importance of addressing workplace discrimination and the legal consequences of such behaviors. The case underscores the need for HR departments to educate staff on appropriate workplace conduct and prevent such incidents from occurring.

Running Head: Human Resource Management
Human Resource Management
[DATE]
[Company name]
[Company address]

Human Resource Management 1
Human Resource Management
In a case between Ellingsworth v Hartford Fire Ins. Co. it was found that a supervisor of the
organization used to repeatedly tell an employee that the employee dressed like a lesbian and
had tattoos like a lesbian (STENGEL, 2018). This event took place repeatedly at the
workplace. The employee who used to work at Hartford Fire Ins Co. used to get comments of
being lesbian and the tattoos that were inked in her body were like lesbians. She was even
forced to show her tattoos to the co-workers and asked if the tattoos made her look like a
lesbian or not. But it was found that the employee was heterosexual in nature. The repetitive
event of this sort kept on happening and she couldn’t bear any longer. As she was unable to
concentrate on the work and not being able to bear the situation on a daily basis she took
leave and eventually resigned from the job alleging constructive discharge.
A case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case
was found to be declared against the motion where the plaintiff claimed gender stereotyping
which was found to be in the violation of Title VII. The whole event of bullying took place
for one full year before the employee left the job and nobody took any action. Late the
employee also said that the reason for which the HR department needs money is this to
educate staffs of such behaviors at workplace.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a law that protects individuals against discrimination and
preaches equality (Andrews and Gaby, 2015). This law generally prohibits discrimination
based on certain characteristics by the state and the federal government of the United States
of America. Any discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the
constitution hence it protects only the employees of the public sector. Under this federal law,
employer or any person can not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion, pregnancy,
age, disability, citizenship, national origin, and others.

Human Resource Management 2
In the court, the result has gone in the favor of the employee and against the employer. This
was a case of sexual discrimination at a workplace where an employee on repeated bullying
on her sexual orientation got depressed and had anxiety. When these incidents were informed
to the organization no action was taken and she went for a leave unable to take the stress.
Later she was asked to join or get terminated and said that nothing could be done for this
harassment. She was then finally constructively discharged. The case was won by the
employee on the basis of gender stereotyping which can also be termed as sex discrimination.
The case went against the employer in this case as the employer was repeatedly informed
about the harassment and no action had been taken on behalf of the employer moreover she
was constructively dismissed from the organization. The mistreatment, gender stereotyping
and harassment was in violation of Title VII hence it was declared that Ms. Ellingsworth was
engaged in protected activity.

Human Resource Management 3
References
STENGEL, D. (2018). ELLINGSWORTH v. HARTFORD | 247 F.Supp.3d 546 (2017) |
20170324i35 | Leagle.com. [online] Leagle. Available at:
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170324i35 [Accessed 20 Sep. 2018].
Andrews, K. T., & Gaby, S. (2015, June). Local protest and federal policy: The impact of the
civil rights movement on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 30, pp. 509-
527).