Sybil Little v. CSRA, et al.

An EEOC Complaint should not be "strictly interpreted" due process of law should be administered for evidence to be given to the court; contradictions within the rulings of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals should be addressed and interpreted by the Supreme Court. The question presented: How should a court handle an EEOC Complaint? What information should be formally on the Complaint for the court to review? The United States Supreme Court has decided the definition of a "supervisor" for purposes of assessing liability for unlawful harassment under Title VII should be "when the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim, i.e. to effect "significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, a decision causing a significant change in benefits." The question presented: When a person with the title of "supervisor" or "manager" creates a hostile work environment by further sexually harassing an employee should the company and supervisor be held responsible personally and financially? When the management of a company knows an employee has created a hostile work environment against a fellow employee should the company be held responsible?