Employment Law Sexual Harassment Research Paper FARAGHER v. CITY OF BOCA RATON Professor: Julie Girten Brian Ellison November 22, 2012 HRM 320 1.) Define sexual harassment as the term is used legally. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment. Sexual harassment is a form of Sex Discrimination that occurs in the workplace. Persons who are the victims of sexual harassment may sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A.
Sexual harassment falls into two categories: quid pro quo sexual harassment and hostile environment sexual harassment. Quid pro quo is “this for that”. For example, if a supervisor propositions a subordinate with a raise if she goes out with him-constitutes as quid pro quo. When one party interferes with the work performance of the victim in an unreasonable manner, or exposes the victim to a rude, lewd and uncomfortable work environment, it constitutes a hostile environment sexual harassment. Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.
Legal Risk and Opportunity in Employment LAW 531—Business Law June **, 2009 Legal Risk and Opportunity in Employment Legal Encounter 1: The information provide for this legal issue (Newcorp termination of Pat Grey) is an implied contract problem. Implied contracts in most courts are upheld because of the presence of promises, produces, and policies in an employee personnel manual. The Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance/Corrective Action Plan is the most important document for both Pat Grey and Newcorp in this case. The supporting legal case is Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. To determine which party is right will be base on the supporting evidences. If Newcorp can produce the Corrective Action Plan, the company will have the supported evidence to terminate Ms. Grey base on unsatisfactory performance.
“Harassment is a form of employment discrimination that violated the VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”(U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2009). To make it clear, discrimination at the workplace is the act of harassing a workers colleague or an employee being harassed by their boss or even a boss being harassed by a co-worker. In this case, the employees or supervisor feel distress or even hostility. Therefore, employers need to write a harassment policy to keep a healthy working environment and employees need to learn how to keep their workplace environment healthy.
In divorce, it is quite common for the husband to undervalue assets or fail to disclose them at all, so these assets can’t be made part of a settlement agreement. b. Unfortunately, prenups are prone to this kind of underhandedness, as well. c. If you can prove your husband did not fully disclose his income or assets at the time you signed the prenup, you may have grounds to have the agreement thrown out. 2.
Legal Framework of Diversity Legal Framework of Diversity Imagine living the experience of being fired from a job because of pregnancy. Imagine the financial struggle this would cause. A person should assert civil rights if he or she is unlawfully terminated. The only way to promote changes and diminish discrimination is by coming forward and allowing the law to handle the situation. The Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) dedicates time to defending discrimination against employees.
Sexual harassment is a form if sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the Equal Rights Advocates (2012), the legal definition of sexual harassment is “unwelcome verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is severe or pervasive and affects working conditions or creates a hostile work environment.” Sexual harassment is a very serious form of employment discrimination in all types of workplaces. Explain how sexual harassment differs from gender discrimination. According to Moran (2011), sexual harassment is defined "(1) as sexual advance or request for sexual favors made by one employee or management to another which is unwelcome and not consented to and (2) touching, joking, commenting or disturbing material of a sexual nature to which an employee has consented and finds offensive." The most common term used for gender discrimination is sexual affinity or sexual orientation.
If an employer fails to meet its duty to conduct an adequate background check and hires an unfit employee who uses his or her position to inflict harm on others, that employer may be liable for negligent hiring. Here in this case, the delivery company hired these deliverers, one of whom had pled guilty to a charge of fourth degree burglary with an intention to commit theft from a dwelling. This is clearly a case of negligent hiring without a background check. Also liability for negligent hiring is limited to situations in which an unfit employee harmed others while on the employer’s premises or while using the employer’s property. In this case, delivering a new washing machine to the home of a customer indicates that the theft was conducted in the working hours and on the employer’s premises.
Sexual Favoritism in the Workplace Webster University Sexual Favoritism in the Workplace Sexual favoritism is defined as a consensual relationship between a supervisor and subordinate. The subordinate receives benefits such as a promotion, benefits or preferential because of the relationship. Sexual favoritism in the workplace can have a negative impact on the entire work center. In 1990, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adopted its Policy Guidance on Employer Liability under Title VII.
Similarly, the Fourth Amendment is another privacy affecting Amendment created to protect citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. Without these provisions of the U.S. Constitution in place, the rights of U.S. citizens would be subject to uncategorized search and seizures and violations of rights to privacy or, worse, the invasion thereof. According to Paul and Townsend (1998), “Privacy rights in private sector employment are limited”. They argue, “Discharging an employee because of his/her involvement with a coworker or an employee of a competitor may result in charges of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional imposition of emotional distress”. Further detrimental to the rights of employees in the private sector is the potential for unequal enforcement of rules regulating personal relationships that may result in charges of discrimination (Paul and Townsend, 1998).