Employment Law - Discrimination and Sexual Harassment - Case Study Example

Employment Law - Discrimination and Sexual Harassment This is a section of tort law designed to protect employees from mistreatments by their employers. The vital role of the law is to protect citizens’ from exploitation. Employment law addresses the following issues: dangerous or unhealthy working conditions, long working hours, unfavorable compensation, and sexual abuse at the work place. These laws started working after the industrial revolution after a notable extent of employment abuse. There are no survival skills other than reporting the harassers to relevant authorities. In reference to the study case, it is an issue of sexual harassment in relation to federal and state law (Boland 12). Discussion of sexual harassment Sexual harassment is bullying, coercion, or intimidation of a sexual nature. This entails inappropriate or unwelcome promise of reward in exchange of sexual related favors. It is also illegal to deny one a job opportunity from her physical looks. Victims should report harassers to human right group to secure their positions. In reference to the definition by the EEOC, “it is unlawful treatment of an employee or an applicant as a result of the sex of the person. The body encompasses different issues in the tort; these include physical harassment, verbal harassment, request for sexual favors, unwelcome sexual advances, among others. Harassment also entails making offensive remarks or comments about an individual’s sex (Rowe & Corinne, 34). In reference to the provision of the law, it does not prohibit elementary teases, isolated incidents or offhand comments. It turns out to be illegal when it is a routine, thus creating a hostile or offensive work environment. This also entails instances where the harassment affects employment decisions such as demotion, or at times, it may get to severe levels where harassers suck victims (Rowe & Corinne, 34). Harassers are frequently supervisors, co-worker, or at times customers. The issue has being alarming in different nations around the world, therefore, making illegal employment discrimination an area of concern. It is advisable for employees to seek legal consideration in instances, in the above discussion (Rowe & Corinne, 34). Discussion of the case In reference to federal law, as well as State law, there is no room for sexual harassment or victimization. This is because it has different negative impacts such as psychological health impairment and stress, decrease in performance, loss of income as well as career, humiliation through gossip and scrutiny, defamation, poor recommendations, and poor life sexual relationships among others. It should be noted that one race does not give an opening to sexual harassments. This is because, in different reported cases, blacks are victims of sexual harassments than whites. This is evident in nations where racism still exists (Rowe & Corinne, 34). In the case of Jami Jensen, who is a black American, it is notable that the new environment is not favorable at all. This is because there are different illegal issues relating to human sexuality and employment. For one, it is advisable not to accept an offer when one is suspicious of fishy undertakings. However, this is not a defense for sexual harassment at the work place. This is an act that can put off potential employees; therefore, it is not acceptable. From the study case, it is notable that the trend continues the V.P makes different unwelcomed sexual advancements to Jami. This is one of the illegal actions which are actionable in a court of law. Other offers such as pay rise, as well as promotion, are also illegal as he V.P is aiming at winning Jami’s interest. This is discrimination of the highest order, as the V.P threatens to demote her as well as reduce her yearly pay because she rejected his offer (Boland 12). In reference to human resource rights in federal law, employees have a right to attend to emergencies. Penalties or actions against such commitments are illegal. From this, we can see that the penalties instituted after Jami visits her mother are against the law. This is because she left a notice before she left to visit her mother in hospital. From a keen analysis, it is evident that the penalty was as a result of the rejected offer from the V.P. It is also evident that the V.P knew what he wanted from Jami’s is he did not document the employment contract. This means that he thought he would be safe by discriminating the new employee as there is no proof of a contract between the employee and the company. Law Application In reference to Civil Rights Act of 1964, federal law prohibits employment discrimination related to race, sex, religion or national origin. Initially, its target covered only women, but later amendments have made consideration of men, as well. The law applies when an employee’s sexuality is a condition at the work place. In reference to the case between Saxbe v. Williams of 1976, the filing of the case is under sexual harassment because of the unwelcomed sexual advancements made by the defendant. In 1980, new definitions of sexual harassments from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission gave a new ruling in issues relating to sexual discriminations. Jami can sue the V.P in the federal court and have her damages paid off. This is because the V.P went against its provisions, which encompass unwelcomed advancements. Other conditions in line with the ruling of the court are ill speech and actions proving to be discriminative. From the V.P’s quote “why did you think I would offer you such position at your age”? Do not you realize that unless you are my girl, you will never amount to anything in this company,” the case is actionable in federal court. Other actions constituting to the proof are demotion, unfavorable payments, and other threats from the V.P. Remedies under Federal court are injunctions, compensatory and punitive damages. This is in reference to the case filed between Ellison v. Brandy in 1991. State courts’ rulings do not differ from the Federal courts; however, damages under State courts are severe. In reference to the case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, the defendant paid damages of $680,000. In federal courts sexual discrimination damages range are between $250,000 and $400,000 depending with the extent of discrimination. However, in state courts, the damage can go as far as $700,000 (Langelan 34). A court of law should rule the case in reference with case laws. Detailed investigations should proceed to prove the defendant guilty, before awarding the plaintiff. This is to bring about fairness in ruling different cases. From the case of Jami v. Clark, Clark should pay $300,000 as damages. The company as well should pay damages amounting to $500,000; it has failed in defending the rights of its employees. This will act as a wakeup call to the company. I would also order to firm to review its policies, in relation to employees’ rights and present them to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in two weeks. Failure to that would lead to an indefinite closure of the firm. This will ensure that fairness, equality, and respect prevail in all working environments (Langelan 34). Works cited Boland, Mary L. Sexual Harassment: Your Guide to Legal Action. Naperville, Illinois: Sphinx Publishing, 2002. Langelan, Martha. Back Off: How to Confront and Stop Sexual Harassment and Harassers. Fireside, 1993. Rowe, Mary & Corinne Bendersky, "Workplace Justice, Zero Tolerance, and Zero Barriers," 2001, in Negotiations and Change, From the Workplace to Society, Thomas Kochan and Richard Locke (editors), Cornell University Press, 2002. Read More