Research Question
You are the Supervisor of a store in Bridgeport. John and Mark are your employees working at your store. John and Mark work very closely with your Assistant Supervisor, Jane, who has invited both men out separately to lunch on several occasions to discuss ideas about the store. Mark claims that during some of these lunch meetings, Jane has made several suggestive comments to him. Mark has not told Jane to stop these comments or reported the matter to you or any other supervisor.
On Jane’s recommendation, you have promoted John and not Mark to Store Manager. In Jane’s assessment, she claimed that Mark was lazy and didn’t do his assignments on time. Jane has never indicated this to Mark, and there is no documentation in his file. As a matter of fact, Jane told Mark that he was doing a fine job before you promoted John.
Mark is very upset that he did not get the promotion and has decided to go to the EEOC to report that he is being discriminated against and that you are retaliating against him because he felt pressured to form sexual relationship with Jane but didn’t. You laugh at Mark because who is going to believe that a man was being sexually harassed?
Do you think that Mark has a case against Jane?
In your opinion was there retaliation because Mark did not follow up on Jane’s suggestions?
Introduction
Sexual harassment is essentially a type of gender discrimination that is based on sexual matters by offending one of the parties involved (ERA 1). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission defines sexual harassment as when a worker is sexually intimidated such that their work performance is unreasonably affected (Doyle 1). Sexual harassment is said to be physical, verbal or visual conducts that ends up affecting the environment for working by making it hostile for the affected individuals.
It could take the form of gestures, unwanted jokes, invitation to dates, unwanted flirting, touching of body parts such as the waist just to mention but a few (Heathfield 1). Sexual harassment involves people of either same sexes or different sexes. A male worker or a female worker is prone to sexual harassment from an individual of either sex.
Sexual harassment has many effects on the affected victims with the most common being retaliation from the employers or bosses. Most employers and even leaders in an organisation tend to use the positions they hold to sexually harass the employees and junior persons of the organisation. Those who fail to succumb to their needs end up facing hostile working environment such as demotion, denied promotion, poor performance evaluation and in some cases they face sacking from the job.
Sexual harassment is a form of crime and against the law that violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is for this reason that sexual harassment laws have been globally enacted so as to protect the workers from their employers or bosses, fellow workers and even the customers to the organization (Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission 2). It is important that the victims of sexual harassment are able to prove their case before any court of law so that justice is made.
Similarly, if cases of retaliation by the employers or supervisors are witnessed, they should also be used as evidence in the case. This makes it possible for the right course of action to be taken against the assaulters thus preventing discrimination in organisations. Statistics show that about 16,000 charges of sexual harassment were filed with the EEOC in the year 1997 (Sexual Harassment Support 1).
This number indicates only the formal complaints with many of the sexual harassment cases going unreported. Despite the fact that most of these complaints arise from women who have been sexually harassed by men, the number of men being harassed by women supervisors is increasing at an alarming rate (U.S. EEOC 1).
Possible causes of sexual harassment
There are many factors that could lead to the occurrence of sexual harassment in the work place. Some of these include;
- Working in teams can make the workers to be close to each other thus this relationship can go beyond the professional boundaries leading to be attracted to the others.
- Professions that are typically meant for one gender type could make the other gender be discriminated through sexual harassment. A good example is the women working in the building and construction or mining industry may be sexually harassed by men they work with.
- Personal problems brought to the work place could make fellow workers take advantage of the situation and sexually harass those affected. For example if one is undergoing divorce issues, people may take advantage and sexually harass them in the name of consolation (Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission 1).
- The working environment and conditions could also initiate sexual harassment (WAGE 1). For example people working during night shifts are more prone to sexual harassment than those working during the day. In addition to this, in the organisations where there is no gender balance in that one gender is dominant than the other the less dominant gender is prone to sexual harassment.
Sources of Information
The information on sexual harassment is very diverse and readily available. Most of the information gathered was from internet sources such as journals, published papers and Google books as well as other books that can be accessed on the internet.
The most researched sites were those on the EEOC which had as much information regarding similar cases of sexual harassment in the work places, actions to take when one is a victim of sexual harassment, filing charges, damages paid just to mention but a few. I was able to collect information on the statistics issued concerning the number of people that have been sexually harassed over certain years.
I was not able to find victims of sexual harassment to enable me perform interviews and gather information from them. This is because most people that have been sexually harassed are always reluctant to talk about their incidents and that is the same reason that most of them do not report such cases (WAGE 1). All the sources used have been provided in the works cited page together with their links.
Alternative Solutions
Alternative 1
Considering that there might be grounds of claim of sexual harassment and retaliation in Mark’s case, then Jane has a case to answer. For sexual harassment to have occurred, the plaintiff must be able to prove the following;
- That there were threats of hostile working environment which could be through, poor performance evaluation, demotion, job and promotion loss as well as other adverse consequences.
- That the sexual harassment was made as a condition of the employment
- The victim should be able to prove cases of physical harassments either through text messages, phone calls, written letters, torn clothes among other evidence items (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 2).
Research done has indicated that most men that have been sexually harassed are always reluctant to report the matter and will only do so in extreme cases or when they have been oppressed (U.S. EEOC 1). In the case of Mark, it is possible that there could be possibility of sexual harassment by Jane who made suggestive comments to him during the lunch meetings.
The fact that Jane was Mark’s supervisor and has authority over him, she had the chance of harassing Mark sexually since Mark would have the fear of losing or facing job consequences. It can therefore be evidenced from the fact that Jane failed to promote Mark and instead gave a bad performance report concerning him as opposed to John. In addition, Jane claims that Mark is lazy and does not do his assignments on time yet she has not indicated this in his file.
Since there is no evidence of Mark’s bad performance, this can be taken as a form of retaliation against Mark’s denial of Jane’s suggestions. From the above discussion, it can be concluded that Jane sexually harassed Mark and after Mark refused to accept her offers she retaliates back by not promoting him and giving a bad report against him. Mark therefore can proceed and report to the EEOC for justice to be done.
Examples of Cases
Jenson vs. Eveleth Mines
This case was between a woman by the name Lois Jenson and an iron mining company Eveleth iron mine found in Minnesota (Sexual Harassment Support 1). Jenson was the first woman to be hired in the mining company where she was assigned to clean soot from the grinding machines. The working hours were very odd making her and other female workers prone to sexual harassment. This was from the fellow male workmates who had the notion that women were not eligible to work in the mines.
Apart from the fellow workmates, there were some supervisors who stalked Jenson. Most of the women in the factory subject to the harassment remained silent but after sometime Jenson decided to forward the matter to the Human Rights Department of Minnesota (Sexual Harassment Support 1). This was immediately after she faced retaliation where her car had its tyres slashed off by her fellow workmates. On hearing the case, the company was instructed to pay damages worth $ 11,000 to Jenson.
Despite the company refusing to pay the damages, Jenson made follow ups and after a long struggle the company decided to pay. This made other women who had been sexually discriminated to follow suit hence reducing the circumstances of sexual harassment in most organisations.
Oncale v. Sundowner: Same-sex Harassment, and Sexual Harassment of Men
Oncale was a worker at the Sundowner Offshore Services Company in the United States. In the company, Oncale was submitted to sexual harassment from his male co-workers. He suffered physical harassments where the workers and supervisory officers threatened to have sex with him.
When Oncale reported the matter to the United States District Court, the court argued that Oncale, being a male could not be sexually harassed by his fellow workmates. After appealing to the Supreme Court he won the case on the argument that it was possible for a male to be sexually harassed by his fellow male workers. Oncale’s case became a precedent of the Supreme Court.
Alternative II
If Jane and Mark’s case is looked at from a different perspective, then Jane might not have a case to answer. Considering that there was no sexual harassment and that Jane was being a good supervisor by taking her juniors for lunch. It is possible that once in a while employers and even leaders in an organisation organise meetings, luncheons and even dinner with their employees (Kilberg 2). They do this as a way of motivating them to work harder and perform better in their duties.
They also do this to keep close interaction between them such that in case of any issues, the employees or juniors will not be afraid of reporting any issues concerning them and the organisation (Greenhouse 5). Alternatively, the meetings could also be used as ways and places of the workers airing their views which make it easier for the employer or supervisor know how to handle them better. Jane could thus be aiming at one of the aforesaid reasons by going out for lunch with her juniors.
On the other hand, Mark might have mistaken the lunch dates as being based on sexual seduction thus making him claim that he was being sexually harassed. The notion that Jane was sexually harassing him, might have led Mark to be reluctant in his work ending up performing badly. Thus Jane would have wanted to promote him but due to his poor work she opts to promote John instead. If that was the case, then there was no retaliation as the promotion would be done on the basis of performance.
Mark would have failed to get the promotion because of many other reasons in addition to that of poor performance. Maybe, on thinking that he was being sexually harassed by Jane, Mark decided to fight back coldly through being arrogant, disrespectful, ignoring instructions and other characters. These would have hurt Jane who wanted to promote him and because of his new character and behaviour fails to promote him. It can also be true that Mark did not deserve the promotion because of lack of qualifications which John had.
Recommendation
Sexual harassment is something that is likely to occur in most working environments (Greenhouse 5). Given that it could have occurred to Mark is no cause of alarm despite the fact that it might have led to him not being promoted. Given the circumstances, if at all Mark thinks that he was actually sexually harassed by Jane; I would therefore advise him to go ahead and report the matter to the EEOC. It is in that organization where the case can be critically analysed to validate his accusations and therefore justice be done (Heathfield 1).
Having Mark report the case and action done is a good move that will ensure that the cases of sexual harassment are minimised. In the case of Jane, if at all she is innocent, she needs not to worry because she is able to argue her points out to defend herself in case Mark decides to report her. As a supervisor I would be there to defend her if only she is innocent and was only taking Mark for lunch with no ill motives.
However, if at all Jane is guilty and it can be proved that she made attempts to sexually harass Mark then she would have a case to answer. So that Jane can avoid being accused of sexual harassment and retaliation, a case that has huge penalties and stern jail terms leading to even loss of jobs, I would advise her to try and negotiate with Mark. I would recommend that she apologises to Mark and through local arrangements pays her the damages caused.
This can be withdrawing the poor performance report she had initially given on Mark. She should also promise Mark of a promotion in case it is available. She should go further and promise to never repeat the acts. If this is done, Mark would be in a position to withdraw the case and be in good terms once again with Jane. Finally, as a supervisor I would advise Jane to avoid such a situation in future so as to uphold the good reputation of the company.
Consequences of personal perspective
In a company where sexual harassment is rampant, people will not be willing to work in such a place as it is very unethical (Kilberg 3). Therefore if Jane is found guilty of sexual harassment the effect will be felt by the employer as the case will be against the company (Vogel 15). The company will therefore have to intervene and pay the damages in a bid to protect its good reputation. Jane’s employer will now view Jane in a different way other than before because she will have created the wrong image about the company.
This is because according to the Law an employer is legally responsible and liable for the crime of sexual harassment conducted by their employees. However, this depends on the position of the person who committed the crime, whether it is a supervisor or a fellow worker (EEOC 1).
The employer is usually liable if at all the harassment leads to retaliation including demotion, loss of job and other unfavourable working conditions. In the case of Mark, since Jane retaliated back, the employer is therefore liable and responsible for the damages that arise.
The damages paid to a victim of sexual harassment are diversified depending on the extent to which the crime was committed (Myers 1). They can be in form of payments such as cash to the victim, attorney’s fees, the costs of the court and witnesses. They could also take the form of remedies such as reinstatement, promotion, hiring back to the job, front pay among others.
If the company has been involved in a case of sexual harassment and the public has had a negative image concerning it, it should work to ensure that the good reputation is backing (Doyle 1).
The company can do this by creation of policies that prohibit sexual harassment in the company. The employees should be forced to sign this policy since it protects both the employees and the employer (Harris 1). The company should also ensure that it constantly investigates possible cases of sexual harassments and resolve them early enough if found (Harris 1).
The EEOC is a body that not only protects the employed people against sexual discrimination and harassment, but also educates them by giving of guidelines (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1).
This commission issues reading materials that educate people on the possibilities of sexual harassments. The commission also requires that each and every company adopt the sexual harassment prohibition policy (Terry 1). The commission also offers assistance to people that have been sexually harassed by handling their cases thus providing justice (U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1).
Conclusion
From the above discussion it can be concluded that sexual harassment is a case that can be handled. However, to make such cases easy to deal with, the complainant should be able to produce evidence. For example, in the case of Mark and Jane, despite the fact that Mark could not physically show signs of sexual harassment, he could use the bad performance report as well as the lack of promotion as evidence to sue Jane.
Also, given the liability that the employer has regarding a case of sexual harassment, it is appropriate that employers adopt the policy prohibiting sexual harassment so as to avoid paying damages and having a bad reputation in the society (Myers 1). In addition, employees should be encouraged to report such cases to the EEOC instead of remaining silent.
I can therefore say that doing this research was of great benefit to me as I had the opportunity to learn many matters concerning employment and my rights as an employee. I have therefore become more knowledgeable than I was before regarding matters of sexual harassments.
Appendix
- It can be assumed that a case of sexual harassment in the work place can be solved if evidence is shown. I n instances where evidence is not physical, the victim could look at ways of making his or her points understood.
- From Mark’s case, the retaliation he got from Jane is assumed to be the evidence to be used against Jane in filing his report.
- It is also possible to assume that a company that adopts the policy prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace stands a chance of not being liable for the damages to be paid by the employee.
Works Cited
Doyle Alison. ‘Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)’ 1998. Web.
EEOC. ‘Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance Guide’. 2008. Web.
Equal Rights Advocates. ‘Sexual Harassment at Work’. 2011. Web.
Greenhouse, Linda. “Court Spells Out Rules for Finding Sex Harassment.” New York Times, 1998, Al.
Harris, Andrew. ‘EEOC Sues DHL Alleging Racial Segregation of Workers’. 2010. Web.
Heathfield, Susan. ‘Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’. 2011. Web.
Heathfield, Susan. Harassment and Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. 2011. Web.
Kilberg, William. “Whither Goest the EEOC?” Employee Relations Law Journal 23 (1997): 1-4.
Myers, Gloria. ‘Suggestions for dealing with sexual harassment claims’. 2010. Web.
Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission. ‘What is Sexual Harassment?’ 2007. Web.
Sexual Harassment Support. ‘Jenson vs., Eveleth Mines’. 2009. Web.
Sexual Harassment Support. ‘Sexual Harassment in the Workplace’. 2009. Web.
Terry Lea. ‘Guide to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’. 2011. Web.
U.S. EEOC. ‘Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions and Answers’. Web.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ‘About the EEOC.’ 1998. Web.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ‘Filing a Charge of Discrimination’. 2011. Web.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. ‘Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Federal Civilian Employment’. 2011. Web.
Vogel, Steve. ‘EEOC Wilfully Violated Pay Law, Arbitrator Rules’ 2009, Washington Post.
Women Are Getting Even (WAGE). ‘Sexual Harassment Claims’. 2011. Web.