Dilemma At Probank

960 Words4 Pages
Dilemma at Probank 1. Steve’s behaviour was not acceptable. Steve’s behaviour is a form of harassment which relates to a situation where a victim is coerced into the sexual advances of a superior in exchange for work-related benefits (i.e. a link is established between sexual advances and the receipt or denial of specific employment benefits). This type of sexual harassment is called quid pro quo harassment. Quid pro quo harassment is a form of harassment that occurs when submission to a rejection of sexual conduct is used as a basis of employment decisions (i.e. it’s a situation in which a supervisor offers job benefits in exchange for sexual favours). The harasser’s conduct amounts to blackmail (i.e. the employee is forced to choose between acceding to the sexual demands or losing employment benefits). Quid pro quo or “this for that” is a breach of trust and or abuse of power. Steve came and stood very close to Jacqueline as she was making photocopies. He then said that he is feeling down and the only thing that will cheer him up will be hug from Jacqueline. Steve told Jacqueline that “if you play along sweetheart it might just be worthwhile for you, is your performance appraisal not scheduled for next week? I do so much for you I am sure this is not too much to ask?” Steve as Jacqueline’s superior coerced her into a sexual advance in exchange for work-related benefit of a good performance appraisal result if she plays along with his sexual advances. 2. Steve is guilty of sexual harassment from Jacqueline’s perspective. Defining sexual harassment can be difficult to define as it is based on the people’s view and it differs from person to person (i.e. for some it can be defined as subtle, unwelcomed sexual attention, for others as sexual or suggestive remarks or as extreme blackmail (e.g. for promotion as a reward for
Open Document