Alexandra Marchuk V. Faruq

Alexandra Marchuk v. Faruqi, is a recent high profile sexual harassment case in the media. On February 2015, “Ms. Marchuk won on her hostile work environment claim under the New York City Human Rights Law. However, the jury found in favor of the defendants on her hostile environment claims under Title VII (federal) law and the New York state Human Rights Law.” This case sends unclear messages about acceptable and unacceptable workplace behaviors. Ms. Marchuk and Mr. Faruqi seemed to have had a romantic relationship according to other employees who saw evident of such a relationship. She quite abruptly then alleged it was because he raped her and that she had been working in a hostile work environment.

What make this unclear the workplace romance and the fact that she was seen regularly behaving in a romantic way towards or with Mr. Faruqi. It is hard for a company to know which side to come down on if allegations of harassment filed when there seemed to be a consensual conduct. Ms. Marchuk claims quid pro quo was why she seemed to play along with his advancements. She was involved in conversations with sexual content that she claims created part of the hostile work environment. Part of the question the employees has to ask is, “If she felt that the situation or behavior offensive why did she not state it instead of being a participant?

What makes it acceptable to some would be the fact that she was acting lovingly toward him and having conversations of a sexual nature with him.

This affects how co-workers view if there was sexual harassment. This case may affect how workers feel about not allowing office romances at all. The case I think will have more employers instituting no fraternization clauses between employees and increase sexual harassment

training..

The American workforce has organizations that have a no fraternization clause for the employee because of cases like this. The defendants claim that she is making it all up for financial gain and maybe a romance gone badly. Companies in America no longer tolerate the type of behavior like coercion of a sexual nature, overtures of personal interest or bullying. This has meant an increase in training employees about sexual harassment in the workplace. “Training teaches listeners how to do something: operate a piece of equipment or use software, relate effectively with the public, avoid or deal with sexual harassment—the range of training topics is almost endless.

Behavior in the workplace has changed because of cases like this to where it is necessary to educate the employees about what are the types of harassments, what to do about it if they encounter it and make policies to deal with the harassment. As our text stated it is the culture now in the American workplace to be cautious of our behavior causing harassment, “it is smart to be especially sensitive in situations where others might take offense at your words or behaviors.

The conclusion I came to after reading the case material and our text is that if the law firm would have had a policy against dating between employees this case may have been avoidable. At the very least, it would have been clearer if Mr. Faruqi used his position in the firm to harass Ms. Marchuk, and she felt pressure to play along. I think harassment in the workplace can a lot of the time be hard to prove.