Evaluate the conduct of peter Lewiston against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment? There are two major types of sexual harassment that the EEOC identifies, which are the “Quid Pro Quo – This occurs when the employee’s submission or rejection of sexual advances or conduct made can explicitly or implicitly affect the conditions of one’s employment or is used as basis for employment decisions made. ” “Hostile work environment – This is a result of unwelcome conduct (whether verbal or physical) that is based on gender.
” The emphasis of the case study is going to the intimidating environment which can occur when unwanted sexual conduct that affect the job performing by interfering or creating an offensive work environment. This particularly case is based on hostile work environment. Peter’s conduct against the EEOC’s was inappropriate; therefore I will say that there is sexual harassment involve. He was no following company’s procedural, his hostile environment can overcome an unwelcome sexual behavior which is might can an effect of perversely interfering with his job performance.
The comportment of Peter Lewiston against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment was not appropriate, and not agreeing to the company’s procedural requirements. The intention or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct is not as important as the conduct itself, and this should be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities. If I were the district’s EEOC officer, I would conclude according to the charges pressed and the disciplinary action would only be taken if necessary, because it could be bad publicity for the company There are two major types of sexual harassment that the EEOC identifies.
The main focus of the Case Study is going to be on their second type of harassment: hostile environment can occur when unwelcome sexual conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (EEOC. 2011) Based on the allegations brought by Ms. Beverly Gilbury, the relationship started out as a harmless crush, but escalated to an unwanted infatuation. Until Mr. Lewiston actually laid his hand on her, there was nothing wrong with how he pursued her. There is nothing wrong with love notes and flowers.
Just because someone is infatuated, does not mean there is a sexual harassment case. 2. Should the intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities? Explain. They should be completely taken into consideration. If employee “A” was to place a hand on employee “B”, it could mean a signal for congratulations, a way to get “B”’s attention or it might not mean anything at all. However, if employee “A” had emotional feelings for employee “B” the touch can be misconstrued as employee “A” trying to make a “move” on employee “B”.
If employee “B” is okay with this, there is nothing wrong, but if employee “B” has to repeatedly employee “A” to stop, there could be grounds for a sexual harassment suit. 3. If you were the district’s EEOC officer, what would you conclude? What disciplinary action, if any, would you take? If I were a district’s EEOC officer, firstly I have investigated on all the circumstances of the case. Since the conduct is between the fellow employees, the employer is responsible for all act of sexual harassment in the workplace; either the employer knows or should have known of the conduct.
The employer will take action against Peter for his unusual acts according to the policies of the sexual harassment. If the employer fails to take the suitable action, I would have first warned Mr. Peter about his actions, along with the written warning of employment termination in case any of such acts repeats. Based on the allegations brought forth by Ms. Beverly, I would say that there is a case for sexual harassment. The only way otherwise would be if there are any eye witnesses that can… http://151. fosu. edu. cn/rlzyzdkc/ybs/index0214.htm The conduct of Peter Lewiston against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment was out of place, and not according to the company’s procedural requirements. The intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct is not as important as the conduct itself, and this should be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities. If I were the district’s EEOC officer, I would conclude according to the charges pressed and the disciplinary action would only be taken if necessary, because it could be bad publicity for the company.