In the Davidson Trucking harassment case, whom should the prosecuting attorney call upon for not upholding company policy?

In the Davidson Trucking harassment case, whom should the prosecuting attorney call upon for not upholding company policy?

• A. IT personnel
• B. Employees themselves
• C. Supervisors
• D. Administrative assistant in charge of writing policies

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that the person who actually violates a harassment policy is the one to be held accountable. A prosecuting attorney builds a case around the specific actions that breached the policy, so the focus is on the individuals who engaged in harassing conduct. IT personnel are typically involved in technical support and systems access, not in the act of harassment itself. The administrative assistant who drafts policies may influence governance, but drafting policy doesn't equal committing harassment. Supervisors could bear responsibility if they failed to enforce the policy, but the direct violation rests with the employees who harassed others. Therefore, the individuals who violated the policy—the employees themselves—are the ones the prosecutor would call upon.

The key idea is that the person who actually violates a harassment policy is the one to be held accountable. A prosecuting attorney builds a case around the specific actions that breached the policy, so the focus is on the individuals who engaged in harassing conduct. IT personnel are typically involved in technical support and systems access, not in the act of harassment itself. The administrative assistant who drafts policies may influence governance, but drafting policy doesn't equal committing harassment. Supervisors could bear responsibility if they failed to enforce the policy, but the direct violation rests with the employees who harassed others. Therefore, the individuals who violated the policy—the employees themselves—are the ones the prosecutor would call upon.