Law Case Study 1: Misplaced Affections: Discharge Sexual Harassment PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Study...

Description

Danelle Lindo Case Study 1 - Misplaced Affections: Discharge for Sexual Harassment 9/17/2018 1. Evaluate the conduct of Peter Lewiston against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is the unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of sexual nature. According to EEOC it can also include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. EEOC recognizes 2 forms of sexual harassment, first being quid pro quo, which is submission to or rejection of sexual conduct used as a basis for employment decisions. The second type is hostile environment, which occurs when unwelcome sexual conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance or creating a hostile work environment. Peter Lewiston created a hostile environment for Beverly Gilbury. There were many occurrences where Gilbury rejected Lewiston but he continued to make sexual advances towards her. He understood she was married but continued to verbally make comments to her that made her uncomfortable as well as sending flowers, leaving notes, and showing up at her car as she’s leaving. Since Lewiston continued to try and be “more then friends” with Gilbury made the work environment intimidating and uncomfortable for her. 2. Should the intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities? Explain. Every side to the story should be heard, so Lewiston’s intent or motive should be considered but should not be the deciding factor in the case. Since action was taken so many times towards Gilbury, knowing she is married, she has rejected and clearly stated they can only be friends eliminates Lewiston’s motive. 3. If you were the district’s EEOC officer, what would you conclude? What disciplinary action, if any, would you take? Disciplinary action should be taken against Lewiston, however I do think the extent to which he is being terminated is over the top. There are some things I would take into consideration before deciding on the consequences. First, Lewiston has been working in the PCUSD for 11 years and had not had any sexual harassment issues prior to these events. Another part is that all the acts of sexual harassment occurred within 4 days and she directly went to the EEOC. Maybe if she went to her supervisor with her concerns, the school may have been able to handle the situation and talk to Lewiston and all would have stopped. Lewiston could have been switched schools so it would have not been a hostile environment for Mrs.Gilbury and warning been given, but now he is left without a job. Also, Mrs.Gilbury could have been given some type of money for emotional distress....