Sexual Harassment
Sexual Harassment
The EEOC defines sexual harassment as unwelcomed sexual advances, request for sexual favors and verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature. In this case, unwelcome behavior does not mean involuntary (Moran, 2010). Victims of sexual harassment may agree to a particular conduct and actively take part in the act even if it is offensive or illegal. Hence, sexual conduct is considered unwelcome if the person subjected to it terms it unwelcome. Sexual harassment can include other forms of harassments that are not sexual in nature. For instance, one can make offensive comments regarding a person’s sexuality. Organizations consider sexual harassment is. Many organizations have implemented laws to prevent sexual harassment, and this has reduced the cases of sexual harassment(Ropp, Margaret & Crisby, 2007).
Sexual harassment differs from gender discrimination in different ways. Gender discrimination also called sex discrimination happens when an individual or group of people are not treated fairly due to their biological sex. In this case, decisions on employment, promotion and other employment benefits depend on gender. Gender discrimination is common in the workplace and affects mostly women. A large percentage of women believe that sex discrimination is common in the workplace. Also, sex discrimination affects men as a woman gets unfairly treatment at the expense of a male employee (Ropp, Margaret & Crisby, 2007).
There are different types of sexual harassment including Quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment. Quid Pro quo is the most commonly sexual harassment type in the workplace. The sexual harassment happens when an employment benefit is directly connected to a worker submitting to sexual advances that are not welcome. Quid Pro quo happens when employment benefits such as promotion, pay rise, employment, and task assignment among others are based on sexual advances. In this case, the sexual favors can be made to a person that has authority like an employer and supervisor (Moran, 2010). In addition, Quid Pro quo happens when the rejection of sexual favors and request for sexual advances leads to leads to loss of the employment benefits. The supervisors make decisions and withhold employment opportunities based on another worker’s submission to any conduct of a sexual nature. Quid pro quo is prohibited in the workplace and considered a crime. The perpetrators of the crime get charged with sex discrimination or violation of the employment law or tort law. Quid Pro quo takes many forms and affects employees negatively. For instance, a supervisor can promise a worker a salary increase if she agrees to date him (Ropp, Margaret & Crisby, 2007).
Moreover, hostile environment harassment happens when a worker is subjected to remarks of a sexual nature. In addition, it happens when a worker is subjected to unwelcomed physical contact in the work environment or unpleasant sexual materials. Employers find it difficult to identify hostile environment sexual harassment because a single incident does not show hostile sexual harassment. A single incident can prove hostile environment harassment only if it involves extremely disgraceful conduct. In this case, courts determine whether the incident is serious and regular. Stakeholders in the organization can create a hostile environment including customers, supervisors, employees etc. The line between the two forms of harassment is not clear, and in most cases they happen together. For instance, a worker’s job condition can be impacted by sexually hostile work environment and lead to a destructive discharge. Also, a supervisor can make a sexual advance to a worker and communicate an implicit threat to retaliate if the worker does not comply. Hostile environment sexual harassment may have Quid pro Quo characteristics. This happens if the offending employer or supervisor abuses his power to make an employment decision and compel the victim to tolerate and engage in a sexual conduct (Marshall, 2005).
Sexual harassment is a difficult and complex subject. Sexual harassment can happen in different circumstances and locations. It can include any person and anyone can be impacted by sexual harassment. What is considered sexual harassment differs from one situation to another. Therefore, different factors help determine whether an action is sexual harassment or not. First, EEOC should determine the frequency of behavior. The frequency of behavior can provide sufficient information to determine whether the behavior constitutes sexual harassment or not (Moran, 2010). Second, EEOC should determine whether the behavior was physical or verbal. Sexual harassment can be either verbal or physical. It can also be both verbal and physical. Third, EEOC should determine whether the behavior was hostile or patently offensive. Hostile conducts can help determine whether the conduct is a hostile environment harassment or not hostile. Fourth, EEOC should determine whether a coworker or supervisor perpetrated the action. Coworkers and supervisors can harass employees sexually. Fifth, the EEOC should determine whether other people joined in the perpetration of the harassment. Sixth, EEOC should determine whether the sexual harassment was directed to other people apart from the victim. Lastly, EEOC should determine the impact of harassment and gender discrimination. EEOC should determine whether the conduct happened where other genders related actions occurred (Marshall, 2005).
Unreasonable behavior refers to behavior that a reasonable individual, having regard to all situations would be exempted to victimize, threaten, degrade and offend another person. Unreasonable behaviors can be determined by examining reasons why the offender harassed the victim or threatened him. The behavior of the harasser and situations can either be severe or pervasive. The term severe and pervasive help determine the effect of the harasser’s behavior the severity of the situation. It determines situations considered sexual harassment. A conduct is considered pervasive if it is persistent and has a negative effect on the employees. Also, a situation is considered severe if it affects the victim negatively. A single conduct cannot be considered pervasive. However, the conduct should happen several times to be considered pervasive. The pervasiveness of a situation or conduct can be determined by determining the number of people involved. It can also be determined by determining the length of the sexual harassment and time. Companies should have valid written policy to prevent sexual harassment. Sexual harassment has become a problem in many companies and led to legal suits due to lack of sexual harassment policy. This has in turn, led to losses as the companies pay for causing damage. Having a valid written policy prevents companies from legal suits and losses resulting from sexual harassments (Gerdes, 1999).
Case analysis
Case facts
Faragher v City of Boca Raton 524 US 775 (1998) is a Supreme Court case that involved Faragher and the city of Boca Raton. The case identified situations when an employer may be held responsible for actions of a supervisory worker. The employer is held responsible if the supervisor’s sexual harassment of workers leads to hostile employment and employment discrimination. This is according to Title VII of the civil rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court claimed that an employer is responsible for actionable discrimination caused by a supervisor. The case revolved around lifeguard who had resigned from her position. Beth Ann Faragher claimed that her supervisors (David Silverman and Bill Terry) developed a sexually hostile environment in the organization. She also argued that there was regularly unwelcomed offensive touching. Terry touched the female life guards regularly in areas not invited to touch. Moreover, the supervisors spoke about female in offensive terms. For instance, silver made regular vulgar slurs to women. He spoke about women matters and referred to oral sex (Kramer & Solotoff, 1994).
Court review
The court reviewed the records after determining that the relationship Terry and Silverman had with the city did not help in the harassment. The court did not find enough evidence to consider the harassment pervasive. Also, they did not find evidence to show that the city should have been aware of the harassment. The court claimed that the life guards including Faragher should have reported the issue to the City. Faragher claimed that the supervisors abused their power in order to keep employees in their place by making offensive comments (Kramer & Solotoff, 1994).
Court decision
The Supreme Court claimed that Terry and Silverman acted outside the employment scope to meet their personal needs. Also, the court argued that the supervisor’s relations with the city did not help in why the supervisors treated their fellow employees. As a result, the court stated that Terry and Silverman did not threaten to fire Faragher and demote her and the agency relationship did not lead to harassment. The Court of appeal rejected liability on behalf of the City. The court of appeal also objected the claim that an employer is not responsible for what workers do. The City claimed that it should not be liable for what an employer does in the organization. The court decided that the employer should not be responsible after debating. The court claimed the employees did not get harmed, and the employee was not supposed to be accountable. On the other hand, Faragher believed the city was responsible as she worked for the City. After an opinion delivered by David H. Souter, the court agreed that the City was responsible for the actions of the employer. The court based its decision on the civil rights Act. As a result, the City was charged with actionable discrimination caused by supervisors (Kramer & Solotoff, 1994).
I support the court decision as Faragher, and other workers worked for the City. The City should have protected the employees from sexual harassment by developing appropriate policy for sexual harassment. However, the City did not have a policy to protect employees from sexual harassment and this gave the supervisors an opportunity to harass female workers. The supervisors used their power to harass women by asking for sexual favors in order to promote them. Also, the life guard had reported the issue to the City in order to stop it, but it continued. Nancy Ewanchew had reported the problem to the City before to prevent harassment of women, but it did not stop. This forced Faragher to report the issue after sexual harassment. The City should have created a favorable working environment for Faragher and other women by preventing sexual harassment. The City should have investigated the issue and punished the perpetrators (supervisors) to stop sexual harassment, but it did not. Therefore, it was liable for the actions of the supervisors (Kramer & Solotoff, 1994).
Reference
Gerdes, L.L. (1999). Sexual harassment. GreenHaven press
Kramer, H.S., & Solotoff, L. (1994). Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Law journal press
Marshall, A. (2005). Confronting Sexual Harassment:The Law and Politics Of Everyday Life. Ashgate publishing
Moran, J.J. (2010). Employment Law: New challenges in the business environment. (5th ed). Prentice Hall
Ropp, A., Margaret, S., & Crisby, F.J. (2007). Sex Discrimination in the Workplace:Multidisciplinary Perspectives. John Wiley & Sons
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
