Read the following case:
Answer the questions accordingly:
PLEASE MAKE COPY PASTE AVAILABLE
EEOC v. Management...
EEOC v. Management Hospitality of Racine 666 F.3d 422 (7th Cir. 2012) OPINION BY DISTRICT JUDGE YOUNG: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") brought this action on behalf of two serv- ers, Katrina Shisler and Michelle Powell, who were em- ployed at an International House of Pancakes franchise in Racine, Wisconsin (the "Racine IHOP"), alleging that the servers were sexually harassed in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A jury found in favor of Shisler and Powell on the hostile work envi- ronment claim...." Salauddin) Janmohammed was the principal owner and franchisee of twenty-one IHOPs, including the Ra- cine IHOP. He operated the Racine IHOP under the franchise name of MHR and was its president and sole share-holder. MHR contracted with Flipmcastack, a company solely owned by Janmohammed's wife, Vic- toria Janmohammed, to provide management consult- ing services for his IHOPs. These services included accounting and payroll, corporate IHOP franchise reporting and compliance, and human resources as- sistance. In addition, Flipmeastack hired the district managers, who, in turn, hired the general managers of each restaurant in the district, and oversaw the day-to- day operations of those particular restaurants. In 2005, Steve Smith was the district manager of the Racine IHOP, Michelle Dahl was the general manager, and Nadia Del Rio and Rosalio "Junior" Gutierrez were the assistant managers. The employees of each restaurant, including the general manager, assistant managers, and servers, were employees of MHR. *** banter, tinged with sexual innuendo. He told her he wanted to k her, propositioned her for three-way sex with his girlfriend, told her she was "kinky" and liked "rough" sex, and stared at the intimate parts of her body "like a piece of meat." Gutierrez engaged in physi- cal touching by "slap groping" her buttocks. Shisler testified that she felt "bullied by him and that his com- ments made her feel "dirty." Given the age difference between Shisler and Gutierrez and Gutierrez's position of authority over her, a rational jury could have con- cluded that Gutierrez's verbal and physical harassment directed at Shisler created an objectively hostile and abusive work environment. The Defendants attack Shisler's credibility by argu- ing that on cross-examination, she could only identify three specific instances of sexually harassing comments and conduct by Gutierrez over the four-week period that she worked at the Racine IHOP. As noted, however, Shisler testified to more than three specific instances of conduct, and she testified that some form of verbal harassment occurred on every shift that she worked with Gutierrez. Although Shisler could not remember the exact dates that specific instances of sexual harass- ment occurred, the jury was entitled to believe Shisler's version of events. In any event, to prevail, Shisler need not show that the conduct complained of was both se- vere and pervasive; "even one act of harassment will suffice if it is egregious." A jury could infer that the three instances that Shisler did testify to-telling her that he thought she was "kinky" and liked it "rough." propositioning her for sex on the pancake batter, and "slap groping her buttocks-were sufficiently severe to support a jury verdict. The Defendants also suggest that Shisler was not subjectively offended by Gutierrez's crude com- ments because her MySpace page contained a sexu- ally graphic video of young males masturbating in the presence of young females, and contains the comment, "funny as hell." The jury was entitled to disregard this video as evidence that Shisler did not find Gutierrez's comments to be offensive. As the district court ob- served, "sharing jokes with friends in an online com- munity is vastly different than being propositioned for sex by a supervisor at work." Further, there is sufficient evidence in the record showing that Shisler was sub- jectively offended by Gutierrez's comments and con- duct because she repeatedly informed Gutierrez that 1. Sexual Harassment Claims A sexually hostile or abusive work environment is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For sexual harassment to be action- able, a plaintiff must prove conduct that is so severe or pervasive as "to alter the conditions of [her] employ- ment and create an abusive working environment." *** We find that a rational jury could have found that Shisler was subjected to harassment that was both se- vere and pervasive.... Shisler testified that Gutierrez engaged in sexually harassing conduct during every shift that Gutierrez was her assistant manager. His comments to Shisler were highly offensive and easily surpassed what could reasonably be described as vulgar