Employment Law: Janets Rights - Case Study Example

Employment Law: Janet’s Rights Even though, the and federal laws in America prohibit sexual harassment and racial discrimination at workplace, sexual harassment and racial discrimination cases from workplaces are growing day by day. The given case study of Jami Jensen is a clear case of sexual harassment and racial discrimination. Sexual harassment and racial discrimination are the two issues involved in the given case. Let me state right up front that the first claim Jami can makes is a claim related to sexual harassment. In the given cases, the sexual harassment or the misbehavior started at the time of interview itself. The case study clearly says that several interview board members stared at her including the Mr. Clark. In other words, the sexual harassment case of Jami started from the interview itself. The fact that someone is staring sexually at her in an obvious nature, especially in an interview like process, should have been promptly addressed. We can argue that Jami could have avoided that job since she felt some irregularities in the behaviors of the board. However, she failed to do so because of her essentialities of a job. Mr. Clark tried to exploit Jami sexually and for that purpose he has made of promises to her. Mr. Clark’s invitation of Jami for a weekend celebration was sexually motivated. His words and actions clearly show that he was trying to exploit her sexually. This is also evidenced when her boss takes her to the lake and calls her “my girl,” intending the term as a sexual reference. Moreover, he kissed her even though she resisted initially. Upon further examination of the events that took place in the weekend, it is crystal clear that Mr. Clark was trying to exploit her. According to the Employment Law in Georgia, Direct sexual conduct--an employer makes sexual advances or statements, "Quid pro quo" - job-related benefits are offered in exchange for sexual conduct, Hostile work environment--an employer maintains an overly sexual work environment etc are prohibited under the sexual harassment law in Georgia (Employment Law in Georgia). Under the Federal sex harassment law also Quid Pro Quo harassment (An employee is required to tolerate sexual harassment in order to obtain or keep a job, job benefit, raise, or promotion) is prohibited. Sexual harassment in the form of verbal, physical, or both are strictly prohibited by the federal laws (Larson- Sexual Harassment Law). In short, Mr. Clark committed serious crimes as an employer according to the state and federal laws with respect to sexual harassment at workplace. Mr. Clark had no right to invite Jami alone for the retreat. Moreover, he made sexually oriented advances on her by stating “how lovely she is” and makes claims like “I had my eye on you from the first interview.” This is indeed a sexual harassment case and as a judge I would no doubt make a motion on her side for this alone. Jami was helpless because of her pathetic domestic conditions and forced to accept some of the sexual advances of her boss. Her boss on the other hand was trying to exploit her weakness - something that should never happen within a company. I would easily grant Jami’s claim for harassment by employment and I would encourage Jami to make this claim. Jami can also easily claim sexual harassment because of the events that took place in the cabin. The second claim that I would encourage Jami to file for is the claim of racial treatment. Jami was obviously treated differently because of her skin color from the first day itself. Employers’ questions should be well directed in the interview, and Jami should not have received such unwanted or unnecessary questions from the interview board. The questions like: “you seem to be somewhat attractive, what are you going to do to avoid advances by men and if you are propositioned for a date, what will be your response; if you are hired, what are you going to do if you are critiqued by upper management, claim racial harassment” etc should have been avoided in an interview. According to the Employment Law in Georgia, an interviewer isnt allowed to ask questions like: Are you married? Are you planning to get married? Do you have children? Are you planning to have children? Where were you born? Whats your sexual orientation? Have you ever been arrested etc (Employment Law in Georgia). It is quite obvious that the interview board would never ask such questions if the candidates was a white woman. It is quite clear that Jami was treated differently in the interview. The statement, “Claim racial harassment,” should have never been made. It is clear that Jami was treated differently by the company. She may also be eligible for compensation because she never was offered an official contract. All jobs should come with official contracts and fees and something should be signed and put in writing. This is designed to make the worker and the organization. Jami should have been offered a signed contract that described her rights. This would have protected her from the business organization shortening her contract. The contract that put Jami down to $40,000 should have also been placed in writing as well. The contract should have been written in writing. According to federal and state laws with respect to racial discrimination, an employee can secure relief, if he/she believes she/he have been subjected to discrimination due to his/her race. “Discrimination may occur at any stage of employment, including the initial hiring decision, promotions, layoffs or "RIFs", compensation, benefits, job assignments, training, or termination of employment, or may be manifested through racist comments or harassment at work” (Larson-Racial Discrimination Law) The final claim that I would rule upon would no doubt be the fact that Jami was under a huge amount of psychological stress. She knew that by getting demoted at her job, she may face severe troubles in her life. Her mother’s serious condition was another factor which haunt her while suffering sexual harassments at workplace. I think her mother’s condition impacted her decision to get involved with Mr. Clark. Although Mr. Clark might be able to face possible charges, I would probably only charge him with a financial charge. As a judge I would no doubt rule on Jami’s side. It is clear that she was under a great deal of stress through this whole ordeal and I would believe that she is entitled some compensation due to that, at least enough to cover her bills. I would also require the company to take care of Mr. Clark’s actions and file a sexual discrimination and harassment claim against him according to the existing employment laws with respect to sexual harassment and racial discrimination. I have no doubt that Jami faced severe problems at the workplace with respect to sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, psychological stress, and racial discrimination. She is entitled to get compensation from the company for all the above discrimination she faced in the company. Works Cited 1. “Employment Law in Georgia”. Web. 26 March 2011. 2. Larson, Aaron. “Sexual Harassment Law”. Web. 26 March 2011. 3. Larson, Aaron. “Racial Discrimination Law”. 2003. Web. 26 March 2011. Read More