Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Sexual harassment within the workplace
Case studies on sexual harassment in the workplace
Sexual harassment workplace essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Sexual harassment within the workplace
FACTS: Kimberly Ellerth was an employee at Burlington Industries who quit after 15 months due to alleged sexual harassment by her supervisor, Ted Slowik. Ellerth had not reported her sexual harassment by Slowik, despite being aware of Burlington's sexual harassment policy. Ellerth never followed through with any of Slowik's advances toward her and did not suffer any tangible retaliation from him; she actually received a promotion during her time of employment. Ellerth filed a suit against Burlington alleging engagement in sexual harassment by Burlington forcing her constructive discharge in violation of Title VII. Ellerth's case was originally heard by a federal district court, which granted Burlington a summary judgment. This court determined that …show more content…
Quid pro quo tangible employment action in sexual harassment lawsuits as situations in which the supervisor took adverse tangible employment actions including demotions, termination, and un-requested and undesirable reassignment to a subordinate employee for the employee's refusal to the supervisor's sexual advances. Hostile Work Environment is the second classification which is a type of harassment in which the employee's benefits at work have not been changed due to response to a supervisor's sexual misconduct, but the supervisor's sexual harassment creates a "poisoned" work environment, making it unpleasant for the employee. The court stated that the distinction between these two classifications is vital in determining if there was unlawful discrimination, but this does not determine if the employer is liable for the discrimination. The court stated that an employer can be held reliable for discrimination committed by an employee if (1) the employer plans/intends the conduct; (2) the employer is negligent, (3) the employee acts with apparent authority or (4) aided in the commission of the harassment by the company
The legal action was meant to set precedent about a public employer’s (or any employer) responsibility when it comes to the action of employees and claims of sexual harassment. For a human resources manager there are several implications. One is to make sure everybody has a copy of not just company policies on sexual harassment but all company policies and that each employee sign and agree that s/he has read and understands them. Another implication is that there should be regular training on how to prevent harassment. Perhaps even a liaison should be appointed for “delicate” matters such as sexual harassment.
In an express recognition that every sexual harassment case is likely to be profoundly circumstance-driven, Mansfield J appropriately focused on assessing the credibility of the witness, whether the alleged event did in fact occur, and whether it occurred in the way which she alleged it occurred, with a range of evidence before him. Some of the alleged conducts were directly denied: with regard to an April 2005 allegation concerning A Hickinbotham, after assessing the ‘reasonable’ time period in which the incident should have been reported given the surrounding circumstances (e.g. Poniatowska’s position at work), the judge rejected her claim on ground of the significant delay in reporting the incident. Reasonableness was again considered in dealing with a September 2005 allegation concernin...
...thin. That is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court did. They defined that a hostile environment exists when unwelcome sexual conduct “has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” With guidance of the EEOC, The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling was that hostile environment could exist separately from quid pro quo harassment and found Taylor and Meritor Bank guilty. This set the precedence for future sexual discrimination cases.
The primary diagnosis for Amanda Anderson is separation anxiety disorder (SAD) with a co-morbidity of school phobia. Separation anxiety disorder is commonly the precursor to school phobia, which is “one of the two most common anxiety disorders to occur during childhood, and is found in about 4% to 10% of all children” (Mash & Wolfe, 2010, p. 198). Amanda is a seven-year-old girl and her anxiety significantly affects her social life. Based on the case study, Amanda’s father informs the therapist that Amanda is extremely dependent on her mother and she is unenthusiastic when separated from her mother. Amanda was sitting on her mother’s lap when the therapist walked in the room to take Amanda in her office for an interview (Morgan, 1999, p. 1).
The “quid pro quo” harassment culprit is a boss or supervisor that gives certain employees below them benefits if they enter into a sexual relationship, or grant sexual favors to the boss/supervisor (Shaw, p.444). This form of sexual harassment is hard to argue, the suppressor is clearly taking advantage of the subordinate, because the subordinate is at risk for losing their job if they don’t participate.
This harassment occurred in the form of comments, physical touching and verbal propositions that were considered severe and pervasive. As an outcome, the appeals court upheld the jury’s verdict that the employer allowed employees to be sexually harassed in violation of Title VII. MHR was required to adopt a new anti-harassment policy and punitive damages were mandated and reduced from the original amount of $100,000 to the amount of $50,000 because the employer had less than 100
The Lilah R. vs. Anthony Smith case has several consequences for administration. First, it tells students that they are powerless in sexual harassment cases when facing school officials. The courts ruled that Lilah did not have enough evidence to support her claims of sexual harassment. However, the district found Mr. Smith guilty for “engaging in inappropriate and unprofessional behavior contrary to District policy.” Even though the district found him guilty, he was not removed from his position at the school. Lastly, the outcome in this case shows that the school supports sexual harassment. Again, Mr. Smith was allowed to keep his job even though he was found guilty by the district. This was also contradictory to the districts and state’s
Quid pro quo sexual harassment, also known as vicarious liability, is employment or employment benefits are given by a supervisor in exchange for unwanted sexual favors. There are six requirements for it to be considered sexual harassment. First, the victim must be a member of a protected class. Second, the complaint
Primarily, the employee was in violation of federal laws, which protect employees regarding slanderous or racially remarks. According to Title VII, it is...
The two types of sexual harassment recognized today are known as "quid pro quo" and "hostile environment". According to the EEOC guidelines, quid pro quo exists when "submission to or rejection of (unwelcome sexual) conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual". Hostile environment exists when unwelcome sexual conduct greatly disturbs an individual and interferes with the individual's job performance. Hostile environment also creates an intimidating workplace for all employees. (EEOC Compliance Manual)
An appellate court determined this to be factual and allowed the judge’s ruling to stand.
3. Provide the legal definition of "quid pro quo" (also known as "vicarious liability") sexual harassment. Provide one example of a behavior which could be found to be quid pro quo sexual harassment.
Anna’s claim comes under the broad rubric of the unlawful employment practice of sexual harassment which has become known as “hostile work environment” developed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
The case study of Kathryn Carlson and Andy Randolph was about a third grade student who was having trouble academically and behaviourally. This case study follows the life of Andy, the third grade student, and Kathryn, a special needs educator, as they decide whether or not Andy should receive his IEP in the fourth grade.
It is not a healthy workplace environment when an employee is continually sexually harassed by a superior. By choosing to file a constructive dismissal, although finding justice against her manager and high likelihood of being awarded damages, she faces the task of finding a new job with the little education she has. Secondly, should she choose to relocate, she can continue her current career path, and still seek the advancements she desires, but she faces traveling and/or moving. Thirdly, should she choose to seek financial assistance for education she again is able to stay with the company and increase her knowledge and qualifications, however she may face working with the manager for a longer period of time until a promotion arises. Lastly, should Shelia choose to apply to the OHRC, she faces a long trail of legal fees and tasks, that although costly, can end very rewardingly in the end. Again these options are only as good as they seem to Sheila Wheelah, and it is ultimately what would be best for