Distinguishing quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment

Sexual harassment can be legally defined as "verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature, aimed at a particular person or group of people, especially in the workplace or in academic or other institutional settings, that is actionable, as in tort or under equal-opportunity statutes" ("sexual harassment," 2012). If a person in authority such as a boss, mentor, or official is found pressurizing a person holding an inferior position with the intention of obtaining sexual favors, it is typified as sexual harassment. In most cases, sexually unambiguous or evocative behavior by male colleagues may be intended to make a work situation difficult for a recently appointed female. The main motive of the harassers may be sheer resentment to female admission into a male preserve ("sexual harassment," 2012).

Difference between Sexual Harassment and Gender Discrimination

Harassment is behavior that is unessential for the performance of an administrative or managerial job, but in its place outside the extent of obligatory work responsibilities. Harassment is, thus, the conduct apparently slotted in for personal satisfaction, fulfillment and indulgence because of malice or intolerance, or for other private reasons (Broderick, 2011). As far as sexual harassment is concerned, it is the behavior that demonstrates unnecessary sexual comments or exploitation, unwanted sexual proposals, unpleasant and disgusting signals and unwanted sexual contact ("Sex Discrimination and," 2005).

On the other hand, discrimination crop ups out of the performance of essential staff supervision duties, such as appointing, dismissing, and awarding promotion. Gender discrimination refers to unfairness and bigotry by administration in personnel verdicts based on a worker's sex (Broderick, 2011).

"Quid Pro Quo" Sexual Harassment

Quid Pro Quo occurs when an employee is asked, either in a roundabout way or straightforwardly, to surrender to a sexual advance in exchange for some advantage at work for instance a promotion or salary advance (Hartmus & Niblock, 2000).

Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment

The fundamental nature of hostile environment harassment is that the member of staff is "subjected to unwelcome, offensive, sexually-related conduct at work that is continuous and pervasive, and that interferes with the individual's job performance, or that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment" (Hartmus & Niblock, 2000). Anyone can be claimed to be the sole reason behind hostile environment harassment such as a colleague, a manager related to another area, a representative of the company, or even an individual outside the working staff. Hostile environment harassment not only involves sexual advances, but also sexual behavior that is not inevitably besieged at the complaining employee, but has an effect on the working conditions of the accuser (Hartmus & Niblock, 2000). In simple words, such kind of harassment intimidates the working environment as a result of sexual stares and gazes, behaviors, snaps, comments, jokes, terrorization and/or bullying (Gross, 2008).

Standard by which "Unreasonable" Behavior is Determined

It is not a difficult task to determine unreasonable behavior at workplace. The most fundamental standard to judge it is bullying. A person would be plainly labeled as having an unreasonable behavior if he/she bullies his/her colleague(s) creating a risk for health and safety. Even a single incident of unreasonable behavior can result in a risk to another person's physical condition and well-being. It doesn't matter whether bullying in intentional or unintentional; what matters is that bullying is an unreasonable standardized behavior that can result in serious work-related health and safety issue. Bullying can cause stress to anyone whether he/she is bullied or no. Even a person working in an atmosphere of bullying can have serious psychological injuries like apprehension and despair and can also have indirect physical injuries. In simple words, it means that an improper, unreasonable or dysfunctional behavior can have solemn consequences on output, efficiency, job satisfaction and on the physical and mental safety of employees.

Severe or Pervasive Situations

The behavior of the harasser is required to be either severe or pervasive in order to categorize his/her conduct as sexual harassment. A single unpleasant occurrence is most likely not sexual harassment unless it is severe. For instance, a single event of rape or endeavored rape would in all probability be considered as sexual harassment. Similarly, a single redundant date request or a sexually indicative remark might be offensive and improper; it may not be sexual harassment. On the other hand, several somewhat insignificant disconnected incidents may be combined to sexual harassment, in case the working environment is affected by these occurrences. Thus, in order to determine the pervasive conduct, it is exceedingly important to find out the frequency of the incidents, the duration of the harassment from the beginning and the number of other people who are also harassed sexually.

Importance of a Valid Written Policy Against Sexual Harassment

A valid written policy against sexual harassment is undoubtedly important for companies as it can help the employers to reduce their risk of legal responsibility in sexual harassment claims. This is the reason why a core set of elements is indispensable to a first-class sexual harassment guiding principle. Such a policy must contain a strongly-worded "zero tolerance" proclamation on sexual harassment from higher administration, together with exact characterization of what form of behavior represents sexual harassment. Moreover, it must also contain "an effective and enforced procedure in place to handle sexual harassment complaints and impose sanctions against offenders" (Hartmus & Niblock, 2000). It is also important for the policy to be clearly in black and white and widely circulated to all employees (Hartmus & Niblock, 2000).

Burlington Industries, Inc. v Ellerth 524 U.S. 742 (1998)

A. The Facts of the Case

Kimberly B. Ellerth was an employee of Burlington Industries. However, after working there for fifteen months, she quit because she purportedly experienced sexual harassment by Ted Slowik, one of her superiors. Regardless of the fact that she rejected Slowik's sexual advances, she was not put up with any substantial vengeance. If truth be told, she was given a promotion. Furthermore, at the same time as Ellerth continued to be quiet about Slowik's behavior even though she knew about Burlington's policy against sexual harassment, she dragged the company to the court claiming that the company forced her beneficial release ("Burlington Industries, Inc.," 2012).

B. The Issue in the Case

The question put before the court was "Can an employee, who despite refusing sexually harassing advances by a supervisor suffers no adverse job-related consequences, recover against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, without showing that the employer was responsible for the supervisor's harassing conduct?" ("Burlington Industries, Inc.," 2012).

C. The Decision of the Court

There were nine judges in the court out of whom seven voted in favor of Ellerth while the remaining two voted against her. The legal provision employed was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII. The Court embraced that the company is vividly responsible for managers and administrators who make intimidating working conditions for their inferiors. In situations where beleaguered worker does not experience any job-related penalties, "employers may defend themselves against liability by showing that they quickly acted to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and that the harassed employee failed to utilize their employer's protection" ("Burlington Industries, Inc.," 2012). Such a justification, on the other hand, is not available when the claimed persecution ends in employment exploitation, for example Ellerth's ("Burlington Industries, Inc.," 2012).

As far as my opinion is concerned, I think that the court was right in favoring Ellerth and making the company accountable for the actions and behavior of the antagonistic supervisor i.e. Ted Slowik. This is because a company should keep an eye on the conduct of all its employees and must quickly respond to put off the occurrence of a sexual harassment behavior.