Workplace Sexual Harassment

¶ … sexual harassment, and discuss aspects like defenses, judge ruling basis, cause of action, and employee's and employer's civil liability. Both discrimination and employee laws will be applied here. Sexual Harassment Background Information The issue of sexual harassment at workplaces poses an ethical problem, with around 50% of all women employees experiencing it during some point of time at their workplace; the effects of sexual harassment on people are always negative, and harmful (Bimrose, 2004).

Thus, career guidance has a significant role to play in preparing and supporting working women, who may have already faced, or are currently, facing sexual harassment at work. Recent studies on workplace-related gender inequalities have recommended combating of stereotyping by urging women to take up non-traditional vocational training, education, and jobs. Though the above solution is pertinent, the problem of workplace sexual harassment is not accorded due recognition. There are several reasons for this; the foremost reason is socio-cultural limitations that restrict any discussions regarding sex in many communities (Noah, 2008).

Another is most victims' refusal to discuss or divulge details of their experience. Additionally, most victims refrain from reporting their experiences to protect themselves from further discrimination. Sexual Harassment Issues Presented In the given case, the following factors have to be taken into account (Mallor, et.al): 1. Was sexual behavior unsolicited? 1. Does the reaction of the accuser match up to "reasonable person" standards? 1. Is the work environment "hostile"? 1. Is the allegation credible? 1. Are there any grounds for employer liability in the case? 1.

Is corroborative evidence presented in support of the allegation? Action Cause/Defense/Judge Ruling Mr. Silverstein, the complainant, claims that Meredith Shaw, the defendant in the case, played a joke of a sexual nature on him, with a sexual dancer's image showing up on his desktop screen, causing him to lose an important promotion. He claims that actions of a similar nature have been carried out by her following this incident, making him uncomfortable. He believes he needs to be compensated.

Shaw claims the complainant was friends with her, but the lawsuit makes her wish otherwise. She argues that everybody at their workplace indulge in sexual jokes or pranks with each other, and claims that her joke wasn't inappropriate. She asserts that the complainant used to joke back, and can't understand what made him sue her (Mallor, et.al). The ultimate ruling was that the case proves no sort of sexual harassment.

Shaw admits that the complainant's discomfort is understandable, but no certain proof exists that her actions led to the complainant not getting promoted. Civil Liability Two main sexual harassment categories, prohibited under Title VII, could be applicable in this case (Mallor, et.al): Quid pro quo: when a job aspect is contingent on sexual activity of employee Hostile work environment: widespread sexual innuendo and talks in the workplace, creating a hostile environment for employees. The second category is applicable in this case.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended, forbids discrimination in hiring, compensating, terminating, and employment privileges, terms, or conditions based on race, national origin, sex, color, or religion. Title VII is applicable to employers having a minimum of 15 individuals working for them (Sexual Harassment Liability under Title VII). Sexual harassment, both "hostile work environment" and quid pro quo, is included under sexual discrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court, of late, held that this prohibition applies when the victim and harasser are both of the same gender.

The U.S. Supreme Court holds that employers may be vicariously accountable for hostile workplace environment developed by supervisors. The employer, however, can make use of affirmative defense; he/she will not be liable when the defense proves that (1) reasonable action was undertaken by the employer for preventing and correcting behaviors of a sexually harassing nature and (2) employee unreasonably did not use this protection granted by employer (Sexual Harassment Liability under Title VII).

Proof of anti-harassment company policy, along with a system for making complaints, if not used by the employee, defeats the allegation. However, affirmative defense is not available in case the supervisor's harassment ends with a tangible action, like employee demotion or employment termination. Therefore, employers are vicariously liable with regards to quid pro quo sexual harassment. Independent Contractor vs. Employee Most people are aware about the 1964 Civil Rights Act's Title VII, and its sexual harassment prohibition.

Furthermore, many courts have rulings on federal laws forbidding workplace harassment on grounds of race, age, religion, and disability. Though most employers know that they may be liable for employee harassment by coworkers or supervisors, they are not aware of the fact that, under some circumstances, they may be liable for employee harassment by independent contractors and other third parties. This potential liability may ensnare unwary employers (Fretter-Harrott, 2007).

There are some recent rulings by federal courts that offer valuable guidance on conditions for employer liability, in case of harassment inflicted by third parties, such as customers or independent contractors. One recent example is of a hospital nurse, Lisa Dunn, who accused the emergency and obstetric services head of subjecting her to sexual discrimination. While the accused wasn't an employee of the hospital, he had staff privileges, allowing him to serve directly at her hospital.

Dunn's discrimination allegation was dismissed by the district court, under Title VII, as the hospital held no liability for the doctor's actions, as he wasn't an employee but a private contractor. Dunn appealed this decision; it was reversed, with the court justifying that, under Title VII, in case of liability for discrimination, it does not matter whether the accused is a staff member, customer or independent contractor. If, in the case in question, the harasser was an employee, holding the hospital liable would be easier.

Under Title VII, employers may be held liable for discriminatory.