HRM320 Employment Law

1397 Words6 Pages
Sexual Harassment Paper HRM320: Employment Law Professor Kritske DeVry University Online Kimberly Boston Sexual harassment is a very serious issue in today’s workplace. It can be harmful to the lives of many if it is left unresolved and put a strain on the victim’s work and home life. No one deserves to be treated in a degrading way by their co-worker, employee, supervisor, or customer and it is illegal to do so. There are two forms of sexual harassment: Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment, which should not be tolerated. Prevention of sexual harassment and protecting employees from sexual harassment has become a major issue in many organizations today. Sexual Harassment Defined Sexual harassment is a form of sex…show more content…
(Facts About Sexual Harassment, 2002). Explanation of how sexual harassment differs from gender discrimination Sexual harassment is defined by law and includes requests for sexual favors, sexual advances or other sexual conduct when (a) submission is either explicitly or implicitly a condition affecting academic or employment decisions; or (b) the behavior is sufficiently severe or pervasive as to create an intimidating, hostile or repugnant environment; or (c) the behavior persists despite objection by the person to whom the conduct is directed. Gender discrimination is about the "glass ceiling," stereotypes, and expectations of what women can and should be doing versus what men can and should be doing. Men are assumed to be competent. Women have to prove their competence over and over again. Women's mistakes are remembered long after men's are forgotten (Sexual Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, and Gender Discrimination, 2012). The legal definition of “quid pro quo” (a.k.a. “vicarious liability”) sexual harassment and one example of a behavior which could be found to be quid pro quo sexual…show more content…
As basic education for both managers and employees on the subject of sexual harassment 3. As a way of minimizing legal liability to the organization in hostile-environment sexual harassment cases. (US Legal) Case Analysis I have chosen case IV. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services 523 US 75 (1998). The Facts: Oncale was working for respondent Sundowner Offshore Services on a Chevron U.S. A., Inc., oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. He was employed as a roustabout on an eight-man crew which included respondents John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and Brandon Johnson. Lyons, the crane operator, and Pippen, the driller, had supervisory authority. Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assaulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape. Oncale’s complaints to supervisory personnel produced no remedial action. The Issue: Oncale eventually quit–asking that his pink slip reflect that he “voluntarily left due to sexual harassment and verbal abuse. The Decision: The courts were in favor of the petitioner Joseph Oncale due to him being sexually discriminated through a form of sexual
Open Document