Sexual harassment can be defined basically as that intimidation, or sexual coercion that an individual receives from another individual. It can also refer to the unwelcome promise of a particular reward in exchange of sexual affair, or a form of demotion that results from a denied sexual favor (Lickey, Berry, & Whelan-Berry, 2009). This is referred to as Quid pro quo. It can be a form of hostile environment when a supervisor asks for a sexual favor to a junior in such a way that it makes it difficult for her to perform her duties well (Tyler, 2008). In Isaiah Thomas vs. Anucha Browne Sanders, Thomas was found guilty of sexually harassing Sanders and was ordered by the court to pay her $6 million for creating a hostile environment. This case can be used in favor of pollard.
Pollard experienced the form of sexual harassment that is in the form of a hostile environment for working. This is because of the way her colleagues treated her at work and some even sat on her seat and refused to go in a recorded case one of the employees spanked her. The supervisor was unwilling to help her either as he is reportedly a culprit as well.
Pollard in this case was a victim of sexual harassment. This is because of the fact that on numerous occasions she received some form of hostility and when she reported to the supervisor she was asked to âgrow some ballsâ. She also got physically assaulted by one of the Teddy drivers. From the legal definition of sexual harassment, the evidence is sufficient to conclude that she was sexually harassed.
The company may file for two common defenses against sexual harassment; âit did not happenâ and âwelcomenessâ. The first defense entails the employerâs complete denial of the fact that the sexual harassment act actually happened. The second one, the company can argue that the plaintiff did consent to the harassment by the alleged offenders. These are the two defenses that teddy can file against the case. A common precedence that can be used is In Mc Lean v. Satelite tech. Servs., where the defendant claimed that the sexual overture did not actually happen. The other case is Trautvetter v. Quick where it was held that the plaintiff, Trautvetter welcomed the advance and even actively encouraged the advancement by quick.
Disparate treatment refers to the situation where a person is treated differently from others in the employment context. This is a form of discrimination. The Human rights commission found that it had occurred since Pollard was even fired from her position yet King was retained.
To help improve the sexual harassment policy, the company ought to incorporate the aspect of consensual relationship agreement. This will enable the employees to sign consent that they are have a mutual consent to relationship and any complaint can be dealt with in reference to the agreement. It also cushions the company against any potential lawsuits that can be detrimental to the financial position of the organization.
The company can also enlighten the employees on the sexual harassment dangers including providing an advisory statement on romantic/sexual relationships between the employees and their supervisors (Tyler, 2008). This would have ensured that the employees respect their female counterparts thus reducing the potential litigations against them and/ or the company.
The other measure that the company could take is to incorporate corrective measures whenever a sexual harassment complaint has been launched. This would ensure that the complaint does not result in a legal suit as the case is with Pollard.
References
Lickey, N. C., Berry, G. R., & Whelan-Berry, K. S. (2009). Responding to workplace romance: A proactive and pragmatic approach. Journal of Business Inquiry , 100-119.
Tyler, K. (2008). Sign in the name of love: Can ‘love contracts’ decrease an employer’s litigation risks and keep office romances in check? HR Magazine , 41-43.