The NJ Human Rights commission found that Pollard was the victim of sexual harassment and disparate treatment. Please answer these questions:
a. Provide the most current definition of "sexual harassment," including a definition of quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment. Name an appellate court case in which an employer was found liable for either quid pro quo or hostile environment sexual harassment. Describe the facts of the case and the decision the court came to in the case. Include the citation to the case and a link to it online. Would the case apply to Pollard's case? Why or why not? Would you want to use this case in Teddy's favor or Pollard’s favor?
b. Explain which form of sexual harassment you suspect the NJ Human Rights commission found Virginia had been a victim of and why you feel that is the case. Provide law or a case to support your position. If you feel Pollard was not a victim of harassment in this case, explain why you feel that way, and provide law or a case to support your position.
c. Explain what defenses to sexual harassment Teddy's had in this case. (Include the name and citation of at least two federal or state sexual harassment cases that provide precedent support to your defense statement.)
d. What is disparate treatment and why do you think the Human Rights commission found it had occurred? Do you agree with this decision?