The legal issue in the case is harassment in the work place. Kooper made it hard for Brian to behave naturally as he always made snide remarks with regards to his behavior. Additionally, it is clear that Brian was affected by the harassment at the workplace as he developed a mental condition that required professional attention. The harassment reduced the quality of the relationships at the workplace which inadvertently significantly reduced production. England (2015) notes that harassment at the workplace has the potential of leading to suits from the people affected. Therefore, in this instance, Brian had the right to sue the company and Kooper as the perpetrator of the harassment.

            Another legal issue is based on the discrimination that Kooper had on Brian based o his sexual orientation. It is clear from the description that Brian has a different sexual preference from Kooper that makes him seem feminine. It is this difference that Kooper uses to belittle Brian and deny him peace of mind at the workplace. Cobb (2017) is of the idea that discrimination bases its strength on the differences the victim has. In this case, Brian has a right to work anywhere irrespective of his sexual orientation. However, Kooper believes that Brian should seek employment in places that are in line with feminism as the current job was too masculine for him.

            The employer should have set guidelines of what the employees should behave with each other. The guidelines ought to have been provided at the employment contracts to ensure all the employees familiarize themselves with them (Solotoff & Kramer, 2017). Through this way, the employer would have clearly described the importance of harmonious working relationships at the workplace. Also, the issue of sexual preferences would have been handled effectively as all individuals would know what is expected of them. Before hiring someone, the employer should have sought any unclear issues and clarified them.

            Admittedly, conflicts are common occurrences at any workplace as there are different people with various personalities working together. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to design conflict resolution measures or procedures that employees should follow in case of a conflict (England, 2015). Notably, in this instance there is no clearly defined ways of handling a conflict; this is one of the reasons the issue degenerated and got out of hand. Unfortunately, Kooper is not aware of his effect on Brian and does not relent. In the end, the employer will have to get involved as a suit might cost the government as significant amount of money in fines.

            The employer is responsible for Brudley Kooper as he holds similar attitudes with him. Irrespective of having evidence that Brian was psychologically affected by the treatment and negative comments on his sexuality, he still makes a similar comment. In addition, it is the responsibility of the employer to set ways in which the employees should behave towards each other by setting up guidelines (England, 2015). Also, the employer fails to provide relevant strategies through which conflicts are handled creating such situations.

            Furthermore, the impression that the employer gives with regards to the matter is that of lack of seriousness. Irrespective of Brian coming from the hospital to treat a condition he acquired coz of the environment at the workplace, he does not show any empathy and supports Kooper. The employer is responsible for the intolerance evident at the work place as he has not shown any way to improve the situation. Therefore, is the case was to get to courts the employer would be held responsible for the matter and face the systems. Additionally, he would be forced to change his operational guidelines to protect other employees in the future.