Sexual Harassment in the Workplace - Term Paper Example

Sexual Harassment Memorandum Introduction: This memo evaluates the case of Beverly Sanger against Peter Fenning which was decided on 11th June. The case concluded that Fenning had acted grievously and created an offensive employment environment for Sanger. The memo also develops an interview protocol which assessed the parties to be interviewed and the questions that have to be asked from the parties; accuser, accused and witness. The last part of the memo discusses the summary of the case and assesses it by raising additional questions and advices about how the organization should proceed. Overall, the subject of the memo is workplace sexual harassment and how it is addressed in the world around us. Part 1 1. What relevant laws (federal and NYS) will need to be considered in the context of this case? Evaluate the conduct of Peter Fenning against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment? The case involves sexual harassment done by an employee towards another employee who felt offended and intimidated at the workplace. In this case, there are many federal and NYS laws that can be applied. The New York State Department of Labor’s Policy Statement on Sexual Harassment is to ensure that all employees are provided a work environment free from discrimination. It is a violation of the section 703 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New York State Human Rights Law. The New York State Human Rights Law consists of provisions which prohibit sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation on such a conduct. The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the amended Sections 102 and 103 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 prevents sexual harassment, unlawful discrimination at workplace, and the creation of an uneasy environment for other workers due to sexual harassment. Under the Title VII, it is the duty of the employers to promptly correct sexual harassment activities in the workplace and prevent them from taking place. An employer may not be responsible legally for the sexual harassment unless he has the knowledge of the activity. Thus, it is the duty and responsibility of the victims to inform their employers if any such harassment is being experienced at work. The New York State Human Rights Law states that the employees who create sexual harassment or a hostile working environment are personally liable under this law. The conduct need not be severe to be actionable under law; it can rather be one instance only (Boland, 2005). The EEOC defines sexual harassment: “it is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature” ( Buckley, 2011). Fenning’s conduct was overly friendly with Sanger because of which she felt uneasy and uncomfortable. Fenning continued his attempts to please her with his cards, roses and verbal messages which harassed Sanger as she was married. 2. Should the intent or motive behind Fenning’s conduct be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities? Explain. It is unreasonable to believe that a person sexually harasses the other person unintentionally. Even though we see that there was no bad intention involved in the way Fenning was behaving, but he was aware that his behaviour is causing uneasiness for Sanger as she is happily married. Usually there is no intention considered in hostile work environment cases (Francis, 2001). Fenning sent cards and roses, and tried to talk to Sanger again and again which is against the law of NYS. However, on the other hand it is true that Fenning did not show that he needed sexual pleasures or favours as he did not physically harass Sanger. Intent can, in this case, be considered at a certain extent. 3. If you were the district’s EEOC officer, what would you consider? What disciplinary action, if any, would you take? I would have warned Fenning and ordered to keep him under observation at workplace. Fenning’s action did not portray any serious sexual harassment activities. Secondly, Sanger did not inform the employer about how she felt with Fenning’s behaviour, and there was no witness at the time Fenning physically touched Sanger on her head, which according to him was by mistake as he was patting her shoulder. There were no other actions that clearly showed Fenning’s intention to create sexual relationships with Sanger. In accordance to the facts of the case, I would have concluded that Fenning should not be terminated but he should be warned for his actions. Part 2 4. Based on the sexual harassment case study, develop an interview protocol. This section should articulate your approach for interviewing each of the following people: the accused, the accuser, and a witness. Interviews are an important tool for any investigation especially in a case where there is no agreed point. Investigators must rely upon these interviews to find out what happened and how. Most of the times the accused, accuser and witnesses have statements that contradict each other, in such cases the investigators must find out who is telling the truth and who isn’t (Guerin, 2010). In this case, Fenning, Sanger and Mary Ann Johnston are to be interviewed. Interviewing Fenning, the accused, would help the EEOC officer to evaluate the state of his mind, the reasons behind his action and his explanation to the physical touch that happened in Sanger’s car, as this event plays an important part in the case. Sanger, the accuser, would be interviewed to know her side of the story about how she felt with Fenning’s presence and attitude. Mary Ann Johnston is the sole witness as Sanger did not tell anyone about the harassment she faced. She would be interviewed to find out what she heard and what she personally though about the situation. 5. Prepare a potential set of interview questions for each person in the claim. The questions will be based on the Ferraro book. You will develop general and case-specific questions for the accuser, accused, and the witness. The interview questions should always be open-end so that the interviewee can answer with his own intellect without being influenced by the question or the interviewer (Levy, 2002). The questions to be asked to Fenning are: Why does Sanger tend to have a complaint against you? Are you interested in her? Do you feel the same about every other girl? What happened near Sanger’s car? What do you think she feels for you? Questions to be asked from Sanger: What happened in the last one year? Did Fenning’s attitude change, and how? Why didn’t you inform your employer? What happened near your car? Do you feel uncomfortable when he is around, how and why? Questions to be asked from Mary Ann Johnston: What did Sanger tell you? How was Sanger’s behavior at work ever since this started to happen? What, according to your observation, is Fenning’s attitude towards her usually? Has Fenning ever said anything like that to any other employee? Part 3 6. Write a brief report based on your assessment of the case. Given the limited information of the question, you should raise additional questions and/or note where additional information is needed. Most important is that you advice on how the organization should proceed. The case involves an employee of the District who had been working since eleven years and was known as a friendly, outgoing, yet lonely individual. This explanation makes a strong impact on the case as Fenning had not disturbed or sexually harassed anyone before. Fenning has no record for unethical or harassing behavior for any of his female colleagues. He is rather considered to be a friendly and cooperative man. The EEOC would consider Fenning’s background and reputation to easily understand the reasonable grounds of the case. Sanger is however an employee who fears the behavior of Fenning towards her can become more romantic. This is because of the cards and roses that he sends, and his verbal attempts to talk to her and go out with her. These attitudes have disturbed Sanger and after an event where she believed Fenning physically harassed her, she filed a complaint. The event is described by Fenning as just a way to apologize to her by patting on her shoulder that accidently hit her head. The information given for the case lacks as there are not proper witnesses involved. The information does not tell the organization whether there were any other members of the District who observed Fenning’s behavior with Sanger or Sanger’s uneasiness in the work place. There were also no witnesses when the incident near the car happened where, according to Sanger, Fenning harassed her physically. It is difficult to rely on the statements given by Sanger and Fenning as both have different beliefs. In such a case an onlooker is to examine whether the situation looked like a physical harassment or not. It is also true that Sanger overreacted as she shouted, but since she was irritated and worried she could not stop herself which panicked Fenning. Much part of the information remains incomplete. The organization must find out whether the case should result in a dismissal or just a warning. Sanger did not discuss her issues with her employer which is a mistake. Whenever there are such events taking place in an organization, the employee must first inform the employer and request to control the situation. The case should give information about what the other members of the workplace were feeling about Fenning’s attitude, and whether they observed uneasiness in Sanger’s behavior. Sanger should also be questioned that why she filed the complaint 3 days after the incident near her car happened even though Fenning had sent her a long apology the next day. Conclusion: However, in accordance to the lack of information and the unanswered questions, the EEOC must now ensure that they have investigated the case thoroughly before taking any actions for dismissal. The EEOC must have the complete information about the case so that no unfair decision is being taken (Kramer, 2000). Even though Fenning did violate the law by creating a hostile work environment for Sanger, but defensively he did not intend to do it, he had apologized and the lack of witnesses may mean that Fenning should be given a warning, or a transfer. However, if there is no other information that is to be relevant for this case, then Fenning should be dismissed on his violation of the law. References Boland, M. (2005). Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. London: SphinxLegal Buckley, J. (2011). Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance Guide, 2011 Edition. NY: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Francis, L. (2001). Sexual Harassment as an Ethical Issue in Academic Life. NJ: Rowman & Littlefield Guerin, L. (2010). The Essential Guide to Workplace Investigations. London: Nolo Kramer, L. (2000). Litigating the Sexual Harassment Case. Texas: American Bar Association Levy, A. (2002). Workplace Sexual Harassment. London: Prentice Hall PTR Read More