Misplaced Affections: Discharge for Sexual Harassment Essay

Sexual worrying has become a major(ip) concern for every kind of business. In this theme the business is a school district. Every employer must take the issue of perk upual molestation seriously alone in my opinion, this case could tolerate been handled differently. While it is on-key that in comparison to the EEOCs definition of sexual harassment, as considerably as the actions of the parties involved, on that point does seem to be enough to file a sexual harassment claim. However, the eventual action that was taken not save by the school district but also by Gilbury seems a bit extreme when other options were available.The EEOC defines sexual harassment as unwished-for advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical pay of a sexual nature in the working environment has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.1 In this case it is definitely aline that L ewiston was making romantic advances towards Gilbury and that the advances were un cherished. Gilbury make it immediately and abundantly clear that she wanted to keep the family relationship on a working and friendship level. unluckily Lewiston seemed a little slow to get the heart. Whether or not Lewiston made an actual sexual advance is irrelevant.After the first letter on June 7, 2008 Lewistons intent was clear, he wanted a romantic relationship with Gilbury. Although Lewiston did not make an openly sexual advance, he did, on June 8, 2008, cash advance Gilbury in the parking lot and proceeded to touch her. As Justice Antonin Scalia tell in the case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, What matters is the conduct at issue, not the sex of the people involved and the presence or absence of sexual desire, whether heterosexual person or homosexual.2Of course this case determined that sexual harassment wasnt defined by homosexual or heterosexual, but there is an important gu ideline for alone sexual harassment cases. That guideline is that the conduct should be the issue, not necessarily the actual intent. Lewiston may not know intended the pat on Gillburys shoulder to be anything but a friendly gesture, but given the nature of what had transpired previously and that Lewiston was concourseGilbury in the parking lot, Gilbury was reasonable in being frightened.However, the events of the discipline and button seem a bit extreme. Up until that point Lewiston had been a of age(p) employee with an excellent work record. The major events that took place happened within four geezerhood and ended with Gilbury obtaining an injunction and filing a complaint with the EEOC. Gilbury did not maneuver the situation with her supervisor nor did she give the school management an opportunity to bridge player with Lewistons actions. Had she given this avenue a incur, Lewiston might substantiate gotten the message and resumed his normal and professional behavior. I t would also have given Lewiston a chance to ask to be reassigned to another school if he felt he could not maintain a level of professionalism. Termination of a colossal time employee should be a last resort whenever possible.This case is a perfect example of why a business needs to have a comprehensive sexual harassment policy which includes a evening gown complaint procedure. Given training in sexual harassment policy and complaint procedures Lewiston would have been more aware of inappropriate behavior and Gilbury would have had a formal channel to go through upon feeling threatened. Had that been the case the end result could have ended more positively for all the parties involved.References1. EEOC Guidelines on Discrimination, Sec. 1605.11(a).2. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. 72 PED 45, 175 WL 88039 (U.S. 1998)