Sexual torment has become a major concern for every sort of concern. In this instance the concern is a school territory. Every employer must take the issue of sexual torment earnestly but in my sentiment. this instance could hold been handled otherwise. While it is true that in comparing to the EEOC’s definition of sexual torment. every bit good as the actions of the parties involved. there does look to be adequate to register a sexual torment claim. However. the eventual action that was taken non merely by the school territory but besides by Gilbury seems a spot utmost when other options were available.
The EEOC defines sexual torment as “unwelcome progresss. petitions for sexual favours and other verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature in the working environment… has the intent or consequence of unreasonably interfering with occupation public presentation or making an intimidating. hostile. or violative working environment. ”1 In this instance it is decidedly true that Lewiston was doing romantic progresss towards Gilbury and that the progresss were unwanted. Gilbury made it instantly and copiously clear that she wanted to maintain the relationship on a working and friendship degree. Unfortunately Lewiston seemed a small slow to acquire the message. Whether or non Lewiston made an existent sexual progress is irrelevant.
After the first missive on June 7. 2008 Lewiston’s purpose was clear. he wanted a romantic relationship with Gilbury. Although Lewiston did non do an openly sexual progress. he did. on June 8. 2008. attack Gilbury in the parking batch and proceeded to touch her. As Justice Antonin Scalia said in the instance of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services. “What matters is the behavior at issue. non the sex of the people involved and the presence or absence of sexual desire. whether heterosexual or homosexual. ”2
Of class this instance determined that sexual torment wasn’t defined by homosexual or heterosexual. but there is an of import guideline for all sexual torment instances. That guideline is that the behavior should be the issue. non needfully the existent purpose. Lewiston may non hold intended the rap on Gillbury’s shoulder to be anything but a friendly gesture. but given the nature of what had transpired antecedently and that Lewiston was run intoing Gilbury in the parking batch. Gilbury was sensible in being frightened.
However. the events of the subject and dismissal seem a spot extreme. Up until that point Lewiston had been a senior employee with an first-class work record. The major events that took topographic point happened within four yearss and ended with Gilbury obtaining an injunction and registering a ailment with the EEOC. Gilbury did non turn to the state of affairs with her supervisor nor did she give the school direction an chance to cover with Lewiston’s actions. Had she given this avenue a opportunity. Lewiston might hold gotten the message and resumed his normal and professional behaviour. It would besides hold given Lewiston a opportunity to inquire to be reassigned to another school if he felt he could non keep a degree of professionalism. Termination of a long clip employee should be a last resort whenever possible.
This instance is a perfect illustration of why a concern demands to hold a comprehensive sexual torment policy which includes a formal ailment process. Given preparation in sexual torment policy and ailment processs Lewiston would hold been more cognizant of inappropriate behaviour and Gilbury would hold had a formal channel to travel through upon feeling threatened. Had that been the instance the terminal consequence could hold ended more positively for all the parties involved.
1. EEOC Guidelines on Discrimination. Sec. 1605. 11 ( a ) .
2. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services. Inc. 72 PED 45. 175 ; WL 88039 ( U. S. 1998 )