* Based upon the scenario, does the employee have a legally viable claim for quid pro quo sexual harassment and/or hostile environment sexual harassment? What is the likely outcome?…
Brittany was dealing with a hostile work environment, relating to inappropriate behavior made by a co-worker. She personally saw him gazing at a photo of herself in a bathing suit and making offensive comments about the way she looks. She asked him if he could stop with the comments because it made her feel uncomfortable. She later found that he scanned the photo of her to his computer. We she confronting him again, Robert went to her supervisor complaining and stating were not performing according her job responsibilities. When Brittany went to her supervisor regarding the issues, she experienced quid pro quo from her supervisor. She was informed that would be going on a business trip with him, which she never had to do before. And let him know she prefer that she does not have to travel, but was it was work related and they would be sharing a room. Then he told her that if she would show him her breast while traveling, she would get promoted. With both of these instances that happened at work Brittany has a strong case for sexual harassment and quid pro quo in the workplace. I feel that both the supervisor an co-worker should be immediately terminated. This needs to be shown as an example that sexual harassment of any kind is not tolerated. The organization should also be held responsible for the simple fact that one of their supervisors who should have been responsible for enforcing this type of thing with her direct employees was a responsible acting party. I feel that Brittany should stay employed with the company, but yet by her choice move to a different floor or position of her choice and be financially compensated.…
Brittany has a legitimate claim for both work environment sexual harassment and quid pro quo. Upon completion of a thorough investigation, disciplining or firing both Robert and Dwayne should be the first course of action. Additionally, the organization is…
In corporate America, sexual harassment is a huge concern amongst many organizations. The matter of sexual harassment is an issue that needs to be immediately attended to in order for companies to avoid large costs associated with lawsuits stemming from allegations of being sexually harassed in the workplace. Sexual harassment is usually an immediate damage. According to Crucet et al. (2010), “sexual harassment can cause damage to a company’s representation, status, customers, as well as their proceeds”. Sexual harassment can be identified as any unwelcome sexual jesters or advances, request for sex, and/or any physical or verbal conduct that may be considered in a sexual nature. The legalities circling sexual harassment can be broken down into two particular categories. According to Crucet et al. (2010), “the first category is quid pro quo and the second one consists of a hostile environment”. The first category of quid pro quo (this for that) sexual harassment usually involves an employee and a supervisor because in most situations only supervisors have the power of hiring and firing an employee. It also “involves some express or implied linkage between an employee’s submission to sexually oriented behavior and tangible job consequences” (Mallor et al., 2010, p. 1328). An example of quid pro quo could be related to a supervisor telling his female employee that “if you do this sexual favor for…
In the scenario other things are mentioned for hypothetical purpose but work place harassment is very serious and come and I have dealt with it many times. This harassment takes many forms; unwelcome action toward an employee that makes the employee unable to do their job can cause a person to believe they are working in a hostile environment. The harassment can be based on seniority/authority (quid pro quo), sexual, racial, and religious along with other protected classes. In this case it is again clear that it is sexual harassment based on her gender, coupled with the quid pro quo in the threat to use his seniority to have her fired, not to mention the fact he committed a criminal assault if she pressed the issue is all well enough to make this a hostile work…
Based upon the scenario the employee has a legally viable claim for both quid pro quo sexual harassment and hostile environment sexual harassment. Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when a workplace benefit is promised, given to, or withheld from the harassed by the harasser in exchange for sexual activity by the harass. In this scenario, quid pro quo sexual harassment could be brought against her boss for demanding the employee travel and stay in the same hotel room as himself or else face consequences which resulted in her being demoted to the mailroom and receiving a pay cut. This was exacerbated by his comment concerning seeing her “amazing breasts” that a previous employee had commented about thus creating a hostile sexual environment between the two of them. The employee also has a viable claim for hostile environment sexual harassment in regards to her co-worker who has made numerous sexual comments concerning her breasts. Hostile environment sexual harassment occurs when the activity by the harasser towards the harassed is unwanted, is based on the harasser’s gender, creates a hostile or abusive work environment, and unreasonably interferes with harassee’s ability to do his or her job. She advised the co-worker that the comments made her uncomfortable and to stop but the comments continued. The co-worker took it a step further by stealing and downloading and altering a photo of her on his computer. The likely outcome is that the employer will be held responsible and will have to pay punitive damages.…
One of the general legal categories that a plaintiff can pursue sexual harassment workplace claims under is whether the harassing conduct resulted in a tangible employment action (quid pro quo), in this case whether Craig was to be demoted or fired because she did not accept Byrd’s sexual advances. Since Byrd’s comments were hazy, “I just don’t think I can work with you anymore” and Craig was not fired or demoted the sexual harassment claim could not be supported under tangible employment action.…
Every year women across the world seek counsel from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) due to unwanted sexual advances, hostile work environment, lack of management training, neglecting to respond to employee complaints, and sex discrimination. In certain corporations such as prisons and farm houses women are seen as prey to men. Female workers have decided to not endure the harassment, unwanted advances, to be ignored by management, and not be judged or taken advantage of because of their sex. I was motivated by the two articles to bring awareness of sexual harassment by men that are in management positions and take advantage of their roles in the workplace.…
In the case for Brittany she is dealing with sexual harassment in a hostile environment and a quid pro quo environment. The hostile work environment is her colleague Robert making comments about the pictures on her desk and taking them behind her back to put a file on his desktop computer. The quid pro quo environment comes from her boss Duane Miller telling her that Brittany needs to go on a “business trip” and share a room with him while showing him her “goods”. With her saying “no” she then got demoted to the mail room with a cut in pay.…
Sexual harassment has many forms being verbal or physical, explicit or implicit and as a consequence generates and intimidating and hostile- offensive work environment.…
Civil rights law provides for employee protections against discrimination in many situations. The legal criteria must be strictly adhered to in order to qualify for the protections afforded under the law.…
Sexual harassment is one of the biggest problems facing our schools and businesses today. A week rarely goes by without a reminder of the pervasiveness of sexual harassment as a social problem. Sexual harassment is a growing problem in the government agencies, schools, and the corporations of the world; however, many corporations are now adopting new anti-harassment policies.(Conta) The definition of sexual harassment is any unwanted or inappropriate sexual attention.…
Sexual assault occurs when a person is forced, coerced or tricked into sexual acts against their will or without their consent, or if a child or young person under 18 is exposed to sexual activities. Sexual assault is a crime. Sexual assault is not the victim's fault. Its impact on the individual, their friends, family and community cannot be underestimated.…
Quid Pro Quo harassment occurs in the workplace when a manager or other authority figure offers or merely hints that he or she will give the employee something (a raise or promotion) in return for that employee’s satisfaction of a sexual demand. (Reuters, 2017). In this case, Mary is the victim of unwelcome sexual advances and must result in the tangible employment action. “This consists of a significant change in employment status; hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment, or a significant change in benefits”. (10.12 Civil Rights- Title VII- “Tangible Employment Action”). The type of hostile environment that Mary is experiencing is the remarks made by Bob and it is negatively affecting her job, he is making it a very offensive work environment for her. A hostile work environment harassment has nothing to do with the superiors actions or tangible employment actions.…
lThere are two types of harassment: quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment. Based upon the scenario, Mrs. Murphy has a legally viable claim for both quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment against Personal Connections Are Us, Inc. Quid pro quo harassment occurred when the manager Dwayne Miller told Mrs. Murphy to accompany him on a trip in which they would share a room. He offered her a transfer to another department and a promotion if she exposed her breasts to him. She refused and was then demoted to the mailroom and took a pay cut. Hostile environment harassment occurred when Robert Singer, Mrs. Murphy 's co-worker, made comments about her picture in which she had a bathing suit top on. He took it a step further by taking the picture and putting it on his screensaver on his computer and made obscene edits of the picture. The likely outcome will be that Mrs. Murphy would win her sexual harassment case against People Connections Are Us, Inc.…