Hostile work environment

IntroductionTitle VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits sex discrimination inside the workplace. In line with this, according to the Supreme Courts termination in the Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, moorages of intimate harassment occur during instances wherein a form of sex discrimination occurs. Three primary elements must be specified in severalise to consider a particular number as a sexual assault (1) the disputed appearance was g stoper-based (2) the behavior was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a uncongenial milieu and (3) the employer is liable for the behavior (Kleiman, Cass, & angstrom unit Samson, 2004, p. 54).It is beta to none that in that location atomic number 18 two types of sexual harassment quid pro quo and opposed environment. The difference between the two delusions in the nature of the circumstance gnarly. In quid pro quo harassment, the employee is required by an a nonher(prenominal) individual to can sexual favors in assemble to enable the continuance or appendage of the career of the employee involved. Hostile environment harassment, on the other hand, occurs during instances wherein another individuals sexual behavior leads to the interference of an employees work murder thereby leading to the creation of an intimidating and hostile environment.The above-mentioned differentiation between the two forms of sexual harassment, are based upon the circumstance of the morsel involved, another distinction between the two, however, can be gleaned in sexual relation to their effects to the individuals involved. In the former type of sexual harassment, the result of the interpret may be in favor to the individual involved. In the afterwards form of sexual harassment, the act tends to impede the development of the individual involved as it leads to the creation of a hostile atmosphere indoors the workplace.It is important to note that the item of sexual harassment within the workplace does not merely cause harm upon the individuals exclusively it also causes harm upon the physical composition or institution in which much(prenominal) incidents occur. The Labor Department has illustrious that these incidents have led to the loss of millions of dollars from companies due to its ensuing effects amongst the other members of the workforce much(prenominal) as loss of productivity, absenteeism, and low employee turnover (Kleiman, Cass, &type A Samson, 2004, p. 54).Due to the widespread character of the incident, employers have placed into consideration the formulation of caller-up guidelines and principles that enable the prevention of such incidents. The reasons for such serves, however, does not merely lie in the current statistical rise of information regarding the occurrence of such incidents scarcely they also stem from the recognition that the implementation of such guidelines and principles minimizes the occurrence of low productivity resulting from incidents of sexual harassm ent. In lieu of this, this paper result discuss a scenario in which sexual harassment of the hostile environment type occurred. such a discussion will pave the way for the clearing of the conditions existing within cases of sexual harassment.ScenarioA male corporate sales supervisor (Frank) talks to a female sales associate (bloody shame) regarding an account within the comp whatsoever break room. During the conversation, Frank hinted that certain persuasive means were occupied by bloody shame in order to get the account. At the end of the conversation, Frank implied that Mary is obliged to meet him for dinner so as not to lose the account. Mary refused and went to the Human Resource Office immediately.Analysis of the ScenarioIn the scenario mentioned above, when Mary walked away, Frank has already insinuated that Mary should give him some sexual favors out front he will sign off the expense reports of Mary. While it may be argued that Frank did not explicitly ask for such se xual favors, such may implied from the facts that he approached Mary in a way of life which made the distance between them seemed awkward, that he insisted on a dinner meeting beyond office hours, that he tacitly said that he will not sign the expense reports if Mary will not give in, and that he capped his approach with the words if you know what I mean. Such meaningful verbal statements and unwelcome approaches can already represent sexual harassment. It is not even incumbent that the victim suffered some(prenominal) smirch (Harris vs. Forklift).Furthermore, the fact that Frank is not the direct supervisor of Mary, hence, there is no ascendancy between them, is not material or relevant in considering his liability. In relation to the conduct between employees, Chapter XIV of the Federal legality states that an employer is accountable during instances wherein the employer whether an agent or supervisor takes no heed of a account sexual harassment if it failed to take immedia te and appropriate corrective action for the reported incident. This fact thereby renders moot and academic the question whether or not Frank abused his power, authority and trust as a supervisor.Considering the situation mentioned above, the recommended mode of action for Mary is as follows. If she believes that, the employer is well intentioned but unaware, a possible course of action to adhere to would be to utilise the grievance complaint filed in the office at court. The importance of doing such is partly due to the dependence of receiving recovery damages from submitting the aforementioned complaint. Thus, Mary should first comply with the grievance procedure established by her employer.In case there is no such grievance procedure or in case it fails to work, she may file a claim before any appropriate state agency. In case there is no such state agency, she may file her claim before the Federal agency, which is the tally Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In the proc ess of formulating complaints, it is necessary that any complaint she makes is documented so that they may be utilized in court during the trial period if such is the case that the complaint was not well addressed in the institution of her employment ( versed Harassment Center, 1995). Furthermore, it is necessary that Mary consult an attorney that specializes on cases regarding sexual harassment.Conclusion and RecommendationsThe proliferation of sexual harassment cases within various institutions is a cause for alarm as uttermost as it mirrors the manner in which certain forms of sex-based discrimination continually fan out within society. Furthermore, it also leads to the degradation of productivity within the workplace. In order to prevent such instances there is a need for organizations to create policies that are strict on incidents of sexual harassment.It has been proven, for example, that a zero-tolerance sexual harassment insurance policy enabled the reduction of sexual ha rassment cases within a company (2001, p.6). Such programs may enable the encouragement of substantial punitive measures that enables employees to be fully aware of the nature of the offense. Furthermore, such programs should enable the institution of procedural rules and methods that ensures the base hit of their employees in cases wherein harassment occurs. In relation to this, programs should be created that enable the spread of information regarding the above-mentioned policies. Such actions should be performed by organizations in order not merely top prevent incidents of sexual harassment but also in order to promote equality within the workplace.It should be recognized by companies and organizations that cases of sexual harassment does not merely claim the social sphere but also the personal sphere thereby the importance of enabling programs that ensures its prevention ensures the development of discourses that opt for the development and furtherance of equality in both t he private and public spheres.ReferencesGardner, S. & Johnson, P. (2001). Sexual Harassment in Healthcare Strategies for Employers. Hospital Topics 794 5-12.Kleiman, L., Kass, D., & Samson, Y. (2004). Sexual Harassment and the Law Court Standards for Assessing Hostile Environment Claims. journal of Individual Employment Rights, 11.1, 53-73.Supreme Court (1986). Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 40 FEP 182.