Peter Lewiston's Argument Analysis
Evaluate the conduct of Peter Lewiston against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment.
Bohlander and Snell’s definition of sexual harassment “refers to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature” (Bohlander & Snell, 2013, p. 112). Thus, Peter Lewiston did not make any direct form of harassment based on the books definition of such; he did fall under the “Equal Employment Opportunity Commission” (EEOC) forms of recognized sexual harassment. Lewinson created a “hostile environment” which the EEOC recognizes, “can occur when unwelcome sexual conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment” (Bohlander & Snell, 2013, p. 112). As a result Lewiston created a sexually hostile environment for Gilbury based on the constant approaches, and unwanted or requested gifts; even though Gilbury had reputedly stopped his advanced in a proper manner.
Should the intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct be considered when deciding sexual …show more content…
113). In the case study, Gilbury had notified Lewiston numerous times that his conduct was not appropriate; alas his intentions were not to harm her, nor did he say or express any sexual remarks he did make the working environment for Gilbury uncomfortable. Nevertheless, Lewiston should have stopped his conduct the moment he was informed/known that Gilbury was not interested and married. Lewiston’s motives and intent should be considered because he did end up apologizing and wishing the best to Gilbury when he finally realized she was not going to reciprocate his
Bohlander and Snell’s definition of sexual harassment “refers to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature” (Bohlander & Snell, 2013, p. 112). Thus, Peter Lewiston did not make any direct form of harassment based on the books definition of such; he did fall under the “Equal Employment Opportunity Commission” (EEOC) forms of recognized sexual harassment. Lewinson created a “hostile environment” which the EEOC recognizes, “can occur when unwelcome sexual conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment” (Bohlander & Snell, 2013, p. 112). As a result Lewiston created a sexually hostile environment for Gilbury based on the constant approaches, and unwanted or requested gifts; even though Gilbury had reputedly stopped his advanced in a proper manner.
Should the intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct be considered when deciding sexual …show more content…
113). In the case study, Gilbury had notified Lewiston numerous times that his conduct was not appropriate; alas his intentions were not to harm her, nor did he say or express any sexual remarks he did make the working environment for Gilbury uncomfortable. Nevertheless, Lewiston should have stopped his conduct the moment he was informed/known that Gilbury was not interested and married. Lewiston’s motives and intent should be considered because he did end up apologizing and wishing the best to Gilbury when he finally realized she was not going to reciprocate his