Hostile work environment

IntroductionTitle VII of the 1964 Civil Rights snatch prohibits sex discrimination at bottom the workplace. In line with this, according to the tyrannical Courts Decision in the Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, cases of make loveledgeable bedevilment occur during instances wherein a form of sex discrimination occurs. tierce primary elements must be specified in order to analyse a particular act as a familiar ravishment (1) the disputed behavior was gender-establish (2) the behavior was sufficiently severe or permeating to cause a head-on environment and (3) the employer is liable for the behavior (Kleiman, Cass, & Samson, 2004, p. 54).It is of import to note that at that place are two types of knowledgeable harassment nag pro quo and antipathetic environment. The difference between the two lies in the record of the circumstance involved. In quid pro quo harassment, the employee is required by some another(prenominal) item-by-item to provide inner favors in orde r to enable the duration or growth 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 performance thereby leading to the creation of an intimidating and hostile environment.The above-mentioned distinction between the two forms of sexual harassment, are based upon the circumstance of the act involved, another distinction between the two, however, can be gleaned in relation to their effects to the individuals involved. In the former type of sexual harassment, the result of the act may be in favor to the individual involved. In the later form of sexual harassment, the act tends to impede the training of the individual involved as it leads to the creation of a hostile melody at bottom the workplace.It is important to note that the natural event of sexual harassment within the workplace does not only cause harm upon the individua ls but it alike causes harm upon the organization or institution in which much(prenominal) incidents occur. The ride Department has noted that these incidents have led to the loss of millions of dollars from companies due to its turn up effects amongst the other members of the workforce such as loss of productivity, absenteeism, and low-pitched employee turnover (Kleiman, Cass, & Samson, 2004, p. 54).Due to the widespread character of the incident, employers have placed into consideration the prep of comp whatsoever guidelines and principles that enable the prevention of such incidents. The reasons for such actions, however, does not exactly lie in the current statistical rise of information regarding the occurrence of such incidents but 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 harassment. In lieu of this, this musical theme allow discuss a s cenario in which sexual harassment of the hostile environment type occurred. Such a discussion will pave the mien for the elucidation of the conditions existing within cases of sexual harassment.ScenarioA male corporate gross sales supervisor (Frank) talks to a female sales associate (Mary) regarding an beak within the participation break room. During the conversation, Frank hinted that certain persuasive authority were employed by Mary 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 smudge 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 sooner he will sign off the expense reports of Mary. sequence it may be argued that Frank did not explicitly ask for such sexual favors, such may implied from the facts that he appr oached Mary in a manner which made the distance between them seemed awkward, that he insisted on a dinner meeting beyond office hours, that he tacitly express 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 constituted sexual harassment. It is not even inevitable that the victim suffered any injury (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 applicable in considering his liability. In relation to the conduct between employees, Chapter XIV of the federal official Law states that an employer is accountable during instances wherein the employer whether an agent or supervisor takes no heed of a reported sexual harassment if it failed to take immediate and appropriate disciplinal action for the reported incident. This fact thereby renders moot and academic the brain 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 up intentioned but unaware, a possible course of action to adhere to would be to utilize the grievance flush filed in the office at court. The immensity of doing such is partly due to the dependence of receiving recovery damages from submitting the said(prenominal) 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 national agency, which is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In the process of formulating complaints, it is necessary that any compla int she makes is documented so that they may be utilize in court during the trial period if such is the case that the complaint was not well addressed in the institution of her employment (intimate curse 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 far as it mirrors the manner in which certain forms of sex-based discrimination continually pervade 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 policy enabled the reduction of sexual harassment cases within a company (2001, p.6). Such programs may enable the encouragem ent 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 safety of their employees in cases wherein harassment occurs. In relation to this, programs should be created that enable the dissemination 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 occupy the social domain of a function but also the personal sphere thereby the importance of enabling programs that ensures its prevention ensures the growing of discourses that opt for the development and furtherance of equality in both the private and public spheres.ReferencesGardner, S. & Johnson, P. (200 1). cozy 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 undivided Employment Rights, 11.1, 53-73.Supreme Court (1986). Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 40 FEP 182.