Ellen Alleged Toxic Working Environment (Term Paper Sample)

Current Situation
Report from current any former employees of Ellen alleged toxic working environment. After the allegations, Ellen openly apologized to anyone who may have experienced a negative working environment while working for her. Ellen stated that she would be taking responsibility for what happened during her show. Some employees had complained that they had been fired after taking medical leaves. In some astonishing allegations, some employees stated that they had been told by directors not to speak to Ellen when they saw her. Other employees reported cases of intimidation, racism, and fear. To end her apology Ellen stated that they were taking the right steps together to correct the raised issues and regretted the whole situation. Most employees felt that they had no voice and used social media to voice out their frustrations to the world which affected how people viewed Ellen. They felt that only through public shaming that their issues would be addressed. The environment that was created ensured that intimidation and fear run the show to extent that no employee would raise the issue to the show’s management.
HR Link
A human resource manager within any organization has to ensure that employees are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Deitch, 1993). The title protects employees from any form of discrimination that is based on race, color, sex, or origin. Human resource managers must provide employees with medical and bereavement leaves as per contract. The office of the human resource managers within an organization must always make sure that employees are guaranteed these rights and privileges without any hindrance (Deitch, 1993).
Deeper Dive
The issue raised by Ellen's former and current employees opens a can of worms. It is important to note that employers are strictly liable for harassment. Looking at the doctrine of the Faragher defense employers can escape liability by providing an avenue to complain (Mansfield et al 2003). The doctrine also requires employers to provide measures aimed at preventing further harm after employees complain. The doctrine is only applicable when employees fail to use the set avenue. When looking at Ellen's cases it seems from her apology that this avenue was not provided. In case the avenue was provided then it was ineffective. One defect of this doctrine is that it gives employers a lot of flexibility when dealing with cases of discrimination (Mansfield et al 2003). An employer is only required to do the minimum which means if an employee is not interested in the complaint issued, he or she can openly do the least to avoid the liability.
From the Ellen case, employers cannot prevent an employee from publicly shaming an organization. When an employee posts some allegation on a public site using the employer's name the only right that employer has is to review the posts (Ajunwa et al 2017). After reviewing the post, it is up to the employer to examine the post and try to come up with the truth about the post. At the same time, employees' posts should not intend to harm the reputation of the employer. The only way an employer can prevent an employee from publicly shaming the organization is to provide