Case Study: Misplaced Affections: Discharge For Sexual Harassment
Unit 1 Case Study
Misplaced Affections: Discharge for Sexual Harassment Sexual harassment has become a major concern for every kind of business. In this case the business is a school district. Every employer must take the issue of sexual harassment seriously but in my opinion, this case could have been handled differently. While it is true that in comparison to the EEOC 's definition of sexual harassment, as well as the actions of the parties involved, there does seem to be enough to file a sexual harassment claim. However, the eventual action that was taken not only by the school district but also by Gilbury seems a bit extreme when other options were available. The EEOC defines sexual harassment as "unwelcome advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature in the working environment... has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or …show more content…
Although Lewiston did not make an openly sexual advance, he did, on June 8, 2008, approach Gilbury in the parking lot and proceeded to touch her. As Justice Antonin Scalia said in the case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, "What matters is the conduct at issue, not the sex of the people involved and the presence or absence of sexual desire, whether heterosexual or homosexual."2 Of course this case determined that sexual harassment wasn 't defined by homosexual or heterosexual, but there is an important guideline for all sexual harassment cases. That guideline is that the conduct should be the issue, not necessarily the actual intent. Lewiston may not have intended the pat on Gillbury 's shoulder to be anything but a friendly gesture, but given the nature of what had transpired previously and that Lewiston was meeting Gilbury in the parking lot, Gilbury was reasonable in being
Misplaced Affections: Discharge for Sexual Harassment Sexual harassment has become a major concern for every kind of business. In this case the business is a school district. Every employer must take the issue of sexual harassment seriously but in my opinion, this case could have been handled differently. While it is true that in comparison to the EEOC 's definition of sexual harassment, as well as the actions of the parties involved, there does seem to be enough to file a sexual harassment claim. However, the eventual action that was taken not only by the school district but also by Gilbury seems a bit extreme when other options were available. The EEOC defines sexual harassment as "unwelcome advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature in the working environment... has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or …show more content…
Although Lewiston did not make an openly sexual advance, he did, on June 8, 2008, approach Gilbury in the parking lot and proceeded to touch her. As Justice Antonin Scalia said in the case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, "What matters is the conduct at issue, not the sex of the people involved and the presence or absence of sexual desire, whether heterosexual or homosexual."2 Of course this case determined that sexual harassment wasn 't defined by homosexual or heterosexual, but there is an important guideline for all sexual harassment cases. That guideline is that the conduct should be the issue, not necessarily the actual intent. Lewiston may not have intended the pat on Gillbury 's shoulder to be anything but a friendly gesture, but given the nature of what had transpired previously and that Lewiston was meeting Gilbury in the parking lot, Gilbury was reasonable in being