Paper 1 Misplaced Affections
Misplaced Affections:
Discharge for Sexual Harassment
Myat Thu Tun
OL-211-E3082
Human Resource Management 15EW3
Professor Patrick Duffy
1. Evaluate the conduct of Peter Lewiston against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment.
Obviously, the conduct of Peter Lewiston can be established as sexual harassment based the definition of the EEOC in the textbook. To be more specific, this is concerned with the second type of sexual harassment which created a hostile environment for Beverly and is defined as unwelcome sexual conduct has a purpose or effect of interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Peter also got into her environment by spending unusual time in her classroom with her and her students that are unwelcome advances. Peter asked Beverly out for lunch dates over and over again, but Beverly continuously refused. Peter also made comments on Beverly appearance and feelings towards her and giving her flowers, cards and notes, all of which were unwelcome and was communicated to Peter by Beverly. Peter also harassed her in a physically when he stalked her and appeared to when she walked to her car, in addition attempted to physically touch Beverly. All of Peter Lewiston’s actions created an extreme hostile environment for Beverly Gilbury.
2. Should the intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities? Explain.
I believe that the intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct should be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities. According to the EEOC, the commission will consider sexual harassment complaints on a case-by-case basis. In addition, all aspects of the incident will also be considered. While the actual conduct of the harasser will be an important factor under consideration, the purpose or intent behind the actions will enter into the investigation of the case. Incidents were no severe harm and intended will be evaluated
Discharge for Sexual Harassment
Myat Thu Tun
OL-211-E3082
Human Resource Management 15EW3
Professor Patrick Duffy
1. Evaluate the conduct of Peter Lewiston against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment.
Obviously, the conduct of Peter Lewiston can be established as sexual harassment based the definition of the EEOC in the textbook. To be more specific, this is concerned with the second type of sexual harassment which created a hostile environment for Beverly and is defined as unwelcome sexual conduct has a purpose or effect of interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Peter also got into her environment by spending unusual time in her classroom with her and her students that are unwelcome advances. Peter asked Beverly out for lunch dates over and over again, but Beverly continuously refused. Peter also made comments on Beverly appearance and feelings towards her and giving her flowers, cards and notes, all of which were unwelcome and was communicated to Peter by Beverly. Peter also harassed her in a physically when he stalked her and appeared to when she walked to her car, in addition attempted to physically touch Beverly. All of Peter Lewiston’s actions created an extreme hostile environment for Beverly Gilbury.
2. Should the intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities? Explain.
I believe that the intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct should be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities. According to the EEOC, the commission will consider sexual harassment complaints on a case-by-case basis. In addition, all aspects of the incident will also be considered. While the actual conduct of the harasser will be an important factor under consideration, the purpose or intent behind the actions will enter into the investigation of the case. Incidents were no severe harm and intended will be evaluated