Excercise 3.3 : A case Study of illegal Sexual Harassment
Form 3.3.1
1. It does constitute a violation of tile vii, because Mr. McKenna made many advances and remarks that were not appropriate between him and Ms., Smith. In our textbooks on pg. 76 it state that unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment. Three samples are provided that go into further detail. A court case that is relevant here is the Harris v. Forklift. In this case Theresa Harris was asked to remove coin’s from her boss’s front pocket and was asked to go to the Holiday Inn to “negotiate” her raise, and was exposed to hundreds of other disgusting suggestions and behaviors.
2. According to the EEOC the victim as well as the harasser may be a women or a man. Yes, this case does constitute a violation of title vii, “ Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment.” (Human Resource Management, pg.76.) She threatens to fire the aides if they did not perform sexual acts on her. I believe the county is liable because they didn’t provide any formal training for harassment. If the county provided a form of sexual harassment courses and how to prevent this from happening, then I would say the county is not liable. The county needs to conduct a course that follows the employee handbook, when new employees are provided the handbook.
3. I believe that Mr. Nixon and Mr. Whitman do have legitimate discrimination claim against Ms. Diane Richards. Both men were being forced into having sexual relations with Ms. Richards; however, both aides developed a romantic relationship between each other. Ms. Richards said she would fire Nixon if he did not stop his relations with his partner. He refused to stop and was fired. Because Nixon and Whitman was a couple, Ms. Richards discriminated against Nixon.
4. Both organizations should have created a no-dating policy as long as they were careful
1. It does constitute a violation of tile vii, because Mr. McKenna made many advances and remarks that were not appropriate between him and Ms., Smith. In our textbooks on pg. 76 it state that unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment. Three samples are provided that go into further detail. A court case that is relevant here is the Harris v. Forklift. In this case Theresa Harris was asked to remove coin’s from her boss’s front pocket and was asked to go to the Holiday Inn to “negotiate” her raise, and was exposed to hundreds of other disgusting suggestions and behaviors.
2. According to the EEOC the victim as well as the harasser may be a women or a man. Yes, this case does constitute a violation of title vii, “ Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment.” (Human Resource Management, pg.76.) She threatens to fire the aides if they did not perform sexual acts on her. I believe the county is liable because they didn’t provide any formal training for harassment. If the county provided a form of sexual harassment courses and how to prevent this from happening, then I would say the county is not liable. The county needs to conduct a course that follows the employee handbook, when new employees are provided the handbook.
3. I believe that Mr. Nixon and Mr. Whitman do have legitimate discrimination claim against Ms. Diane Richards. Both men were being forced into having sexual relations with Ms. Richards; however, both aides developed a romantic relationship between each other. Ms. Richards said she would fire Nixon if he did not stop his relations with his partner. He refused to stop and was fired. Because Nixon and Whitman was a couple, Ms. Richards discriminated against Nixon.
4. Both organizations should have created a no-dating policy as long as they were careful