NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Principles of Business - Phase 1 IP Although the government and business companies undertake all efforts to reduce the cases of sexual harassment in the workplace to minimum, the cases of sexual harassment still remain the issue of the day. In the context of the situation described in the present assignment, Frank, the corporate sales supervisor, known for flirting with his female sales associates, flirts with Mary, a young female sales professional. Frank discusses one of her clients and says that Mary took a lot of persuasion" on her end, in order to convince the client, Mr. Miller, to sign sales contract.
Frank says that Mary took her client out to lunch five times during the last week and says that Mr. Miller evidently enjoyed the dessert. Mary feels embarrassed, as she took Mr. Miller out for lunch for business purposes only. Frank continues discussing the theme and approaches closer to Mary, offering her to discuss business during the dinner tonight. Mary doesn't like the idea and asks Frank to meet him tomorrow at the office.
Frank approaches closer and insists that Mary has to come to dinner with him, and persuades that it will be in Mary's best interest to meet tonight. Frank also jeopardizes Mary that she might get in trouble on this expense account, and if Mary wants him to sign off, she has to give Frank a reason. Mary refuses, walks away, and immediately contacts Human Resources. With reference to this situation it can be seen that Frank evidently abuses his position of authority and power, and trust as a supervisor. Obviously, the sexual harassment in the workplace, hostile work environment, and disparate treatment takes place. However, in order to give evidence to this claim, we have to examine these concepts more thoroughly.
According to the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC), sexual harassment is a kind of gender discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the employment law, there are two legal definitions of sexual harassment quid pro quo harassment, and hostile environment sexual harassment. The first type, quid pro quo harassment is a something for something exchange, implying that the person is obliged to do something in exchange of something. This type of harassment usually takes place when the manager or supervisor promises his subordinate the promotion, or any kind of professional opportunities. To a certain extent, quid pro quo harassment may be applied here, as Frank tells Mary that if Mary wants him to sign off, she has to give Frank a reason. It should be also taken into consideration that, as quid pro quo harassment occurred, Mary may take her employer to the court, and, as far as U.
S. courts follow the doctrine of respondent superior, Marys company will be held strictly liable even if the company had no knowledge of the conduct (Roberts). The second type of sexual harassment, a hostile working environment, occurs when the subordinate (employee) is subjected to various offensive sexual materials, comments of sexual nature, or any kind of unwelcome physical contact on a regular basis (as a "regular part of the work environment (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace). Although it is unknown from the assignment, whether Frank's behavior and attitude to Mary was the same (including comments of sexual nature, and unwelcome physical contact as a regular part of their working relationships), but, as it can be observed from the situation described in the assignment, Frank was known for flirting with his female sales associates. In such a way, it can be concluded that a "hostile environment sexual harassment can also be applied here. What concerns the legal obligations a company, where Frank and Mary work, and managers may hold in the following situations, they may be as follows.
As a matter of fact, the company may be legally responsible for sexual harassment against the employee, and may be liable to the employee for damages (Hopkins, 2006). Yet, the type and degree of liability significantly depends on the type of harassment as well as the person who was accused to commit it. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the victim of sexual harassment can recover " compensatory damages beyond back pay, and these damages can also involve " future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non pecuniary losses (Roberts). Next, in case Human Resources will fail to respond to Marys complaint and Mary will manage to prove that the the employee acted with callous indifference, with reckless, or with malice, Mary can also collect punitive damages (Roberts). Yet, it should be also taken into account that, in case the court proves a hostile working environment harassment, Marys company may not be obligatory found liable for Franks conduct. However, on the other hand, Marys company, similar to any other company operating in the United States, is advised to follow and observe the EEOCs guidelines, according to which the employer is liable when either their supervisors or agents create a hostile environment, or if the employer knew or should have known of the sexual harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action (Roberts) What concerns the amount of punitive and compensatory damages, the U.
S. legislation limits it in accordance with the number of employees in the company. In case the company, where Mary is employed, comprises of 15 - 100 employees, Mary may receive maximum $ 50, 000 of compensatory and punitive damages. In case the company employs 101 - 200 persons, the amount may reach $ 100, 000, 201 - 500 employees - $ 200, 000, and in case the company employs 501 or more employees, Mary may get up to $ 300, 000 of punitive and compensatory damages, correspondingly (Roberts). References Hopkins, C. (2006, April 4).
How to Prevent Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Retrieved December 22, 2007, from web Roberts, B. S. (n. d. ). Sexual Harassment In The Workplace: A Primer. Retrieved December 22, 2007, from web Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. (n.
d. ). Retrieved December 22, 2007, from web
Free research essays on topics related to: punitive damages, sexual harassment, compensatory damages, quid pro quo, civil rights act
Research essay sample on Quid Pro Quo Civil Rights Act
