Sexual Harassment at Workplace - Case Study Example

Sexual harassment Lecturer This is a sexual harassment paper at workplace. As an issue in human resource management, the paper addresses a case of sexual harassment and the implications. In this paper, Burger King Restaurants which is one of the largest franchisee has been charged with a case of sexual harassment and is paying $2.5 million in order to settle federal claims of sexual harassment. In relation to this charge, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says the agreement with Carrols Corp. covers 89 female employees around the country. This is due to the allegation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that Carrols employees subjected women in dozens of restaurants to unwanted touching, obscene comments, strip searches, exposure of genitalia, and rape. As will be illustrated in the paper, sexual harassment results from unwelcomed conduct that is of sexual behavior. This paper also relates this case to the ideas and issues of human resource management as we have learnt in class. It commences with an introduction of what happened, then relation to human resources and my personal assessment, and finally my recommendation to the individuals and organizations involved in the case. Introduction Burger King Restaurants, the largest franchisee is paying $2.5 million in order to settle federal claims of sexual harassment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says the agreement with Carrols Corp. covers 89 female employees around the country. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged that Carrols employees subjected women in dozens of restaurants to unwanted touching, obscene comments, strip searches, exposure of genitalia, and rape. However, the Burger King Restaurants Company did not admit any wrongdoing and said in a statement that it settled the case to avoid litigation costs. This particular settlement required Burger King Restaurants to improve its ability to respond to harassment charges. Syracuse, N.Y.-based Carrols owns and operates more than 570 Burger King Restaurants in 13 states. Carrols was accused of sexual harassment and a widespread violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Burger Kings largest franchisee--Carrols Restaurant Group Inc. agreed to a $2.5 million settlement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on Tuesday, this marked the end of a 14-year sexual harassment case in which Carrols was accused of widespread violation of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the money will go to 88 former employees and one current employee, the remaining claimants out of 90,000 female employees that the EEOC initially contacted to investigate Carrols alleged harassment. In spite of this, Carrols did not admit wrongdoing as a component of the settlement, and the CEO of the company, Daniel Accordino said in a statement: "We unequivocally do not tolerate sexual harassment in our workplace." The company however did agree to augment its anti-harassment policies and increase training, and will be reporting to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for two years. This story relate to ideas that we have discussed in the course concerning sexual harassment and human resources. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, sexual harassment is a form of gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act 1964.  In fact, by 1998, the Supreme Court of the United States made employers more liable for employee sexual harassment. Nevertheless, the Society for Human Resource Management has documented in their report that 62%of companies today offer programs on sexual harassment prevention training, and 97% have a written policy of sexual harassment (Crouch, 2009). In the case of the Burger King Restaurants, there were some inconsistencies as there was no clear sexual harassment policy written. Over 88 female employees reported sexual harassment and have been compensated due to laxity of the company to define a sexual harassment policy in their company. Sexual harassment is a type of sex discrimination. Legally, sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome visual, verbal, or physical conduct of any sexual nature that is pervasive or severe and affects the conditions of work or creates a hostile environment at work place. In a personal assessment, the case may have involved unwelcomed conducts since all female employees reported the case. And even though the company never admitted the wrong doing, they compensated the victims (Anderson, 2006). This was a positive move by the CEO of the company, Daniel Accordino said in a statement: "We unequivocally do not tolerate sexual harassment in our workplace." This is a policy statement that should have guided the acts of the perpetrators. This statements are however inconsistent with what is actually happening. This is because, the company refutes the charges, but agrees to pay a $2.5 million settlement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) marking the end of a 14-year sexual harassment case in which Carrols was accused of widespread violation of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act. It can be therefore inferred that the act, sexual harassment actually took place and they settled the matter, and live to uphold the policy of sexual harassment as stated by the company’s CEO. However, a conduct is not a sexual harassment if the parties welcome it. Because of this reason, the female employees, victims, from the Burger King Restaurants Company needed to communicate either in writing, verbally or by own actions to the harasser that the conduct makes them uncomfortable and that it need to stop. If this happened, then that was pure sexual harassment, however, one could easily assume the conduct is welcomed if no expression is made to suggest that the conduct is not welcomed by the other party (Caleb, 2009). We are considering different forms of conduct that may have led to the accusation. Many different forms of conduct either visual, verbal, or physical that amounts to sexual nature may be termed sexual harassment, if the recipient of the conduct do not welcomes it, and if it is pervasive or severe. Some of the examples that might have led to the accusation as amounting to sexual harassment include: Verbal or written: Comments about personal behavior, clothing or a person’s body; sex or sexual based jokes; sexual innuendoes; repeatedly asking a person out or requesting sexual favors; threatening a person; and telling rumors about a personal or sexual life of a person. Physical: impeding or blocking movement; assault; inappropriate touching of a person’s clothing or a person; hugging, kissing, stroking or patting. Nonverbal: derogatory gestures or facial expressions of a sexual nature; Looking up and down a person’s body; or following a person Visual: Drawings, posters, pictures, emails or screensavers of a sexual nature. in addition, non sexual behavior or conduct may also amount to sexual harassment if the victim is harassed because of the gender, that is to say, because you are male, rather than female, or you are female, rather than male (Rocha, 2011). The article case of the Burger King Restaurants Company is recommendable. I have particularly learned much about workplace sexual harassment. In addition, my knowledge and understanding of issues and concerns of human resources has incredibly expanded. I would therefore recommend to the individuals and the organizations in the story that sexual harassment policy should be well defined in their workplace and strictly followed. Court cases concerning sexual harassment are normally expensive and costs much to the organization. In addition, the image and the reputation of the organization falls at stake and this derails the profits of the general company or organization. For example, the amount paid in settlement of this case: Burger King Restaurants paying a $2.5 million settlement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) putting an end to a 14-year sexual harassment case in which Carrols was accused of widespread violation of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act. This is costly and means the company spends almost all its profits in settling the charges. As mentioned earlier, this went to 88 former employees and one current employee, the remaining claimants out of 90,000 female employees that the EEOC initially contacted to investigate Carrols alleged harassment. You can imagine this case in which almost all female employees are reporting a case. Therefore, I recommend that the organizations follow the guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and observe the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. References Anderson, Elizabeth (2006). Recent Thinking About Sexual Harassment: A Review Essay. Philos phy and Public Affairs 34 (3):284–312. Caleb Clanton (2009). A Critical Response to Thomas Peard on Sexual Harassment and the Limits of Free Speech, Southwest Philosophy Review, 25 (2):57-61. Crouch, Margaret (2009). Sexual Harassment in Public Places, Social Philosophy Today, 25:137 148. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission--EEOC; NAICS. (2013). Sexual harassment; Litig tion Company / organization: Inside Counsel. Breaking News, New York: National Underwriter Company dba Summit Business Media Rocha, James (2011). The Sexual Harassment Coercive Offer, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 28 (2):203-216. Read More