Case Study: Misplaced Affections: Discharge For Sexual Harassment
Misplaced Affections: Discharge for Sexual Harassment
Week One Case Assignment
Katherine Hall-Blair
Keiser University
Case 2
1. The EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment includes not only unwelcome sexual advances, sexual favor requests, and any types of verbal or physical aggression that is sexual in nature, but also can include derogatory remarks about a person’s sex (Snell & Bohlander; p. 112). In the case of Peter Lewiston, the type of sexual harassment he engaged in was a hostile environment, which is when “unwelcome sexual conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment” (Snell & Bohlander; 2013; p. 112). Beverly Gilbury was uncomfortable with the time Lewiston spent in her classroom, the notes, the roses, the requests for lunch together, and the appearance of Lewiston at her car. She clearly stated that they were only friends and that she was happily married. This should have been enough for Lewiston to leave her alone. Perhaps, because Gilbury never directly told Lewiston to stop, he thought it was OK to send her notes and flowers and invite her to lunch. …show more content…
I do think the intent or motive should be taken into consideration. Even though it appears to me as though Lewiston might not have understood the concept of sexual harassment, his actions were perceived by Gilbury to be sexual in nature. Lewiston should have stopped his pursuit after the first time Gilbury told him they were just friends. By continuing with his actions, it was almost as if he were stalking her and not giving up. Lewiston apparently did not think about the consequences his actions would
Week One Case Assignment
Katherine Hall-Blair
Keiser University
Case 2
1. The EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment includes not only unwelcome sexual advances, sexual favor requests, and any types of verbal or physical aggression that is sexual in nature, but also can include derogatory remarks about a person’s sex (Snell & Bohlander; p. 112). In the case of Peter Lewiston, the type of sexual harassment he engaged in was a hostile environment, which is when “unwelcome sexual conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment” (Snell & Bohlander; 2013; p. 112). Beverly Gilbury was uncomfortable with the time Lewiston spent in her classroom, the notes, the roses, the requests for lunch together, and the appearance of Lewiston at her car. She clearly stated that they were only friends and that she was happily married. This should have been enough for Lewiston to leave her alone. Perhaps, because Gilbury never directly told Lewiston to stop, he thought it was OK to send her notes and flowers and invite her to lunch. …show more content…
I do think the intent or motive should be taken into consideration. Even though it appears to me as though Lewiston might not have understood the concept of sexual harassment, his actions were perceived by Gilbury to be sexual in nature. Lewiston should have stopped his pursuit after the first time Gilbury told him they were just friends. By continuing with his actions, it was almost as if he were stalking her and not giving up. Lewiston apparently did not think about the consequences his actions would