Harassment at the Workplace - Research Paper Example

Harassment at the Workplace A workplace should always provide a conducive environment for every individual regardless of their sex, religion, race, disability, marital status, age, pregnancy, to name but a few. However, this is never the case. Often, employees find themselves discriminated against or harassed based on such subtle reasons disability, religion, etc. Discrimination occurs when an individual or a group of individuals are subjected to unfavorable treatment by another person or group of persons based on their background or certain perceived differences. Even though U.S. laws prohibit employee discrimination and harassment, the vice still finds homage in systematic or individual perpetrators. Based on data collected from a multiple of sources, this research paper established that discrimination against the disabled is quite prevalent in the country, and is perpetrated by the very people obliged by law to protect the integrity of every employee, the employer. Similar, the prevalence of sexual harassment at the workplace have hit staggering figures such as those reported by Gruber at “between 28 percent and 75 percent” (Gumport, 2009). Yet, there is a perpetual fear that the most affected group, women interns, never get to report their ordeal for fear of retribution and the apparent in federal and state laws that protect this particular group of persons. Introduction An average adult spends approximately one third of his/her life at the workplace. The resulting interaction inherently causes work issues since it is virtually impossible to have a workplace devoid of conflict, whether spontaneous or systematic. Such workplace issues may result in negative psychological symptoms. For instance, numerous researchers have attributed the high prevalence of mental health issues such as depression and anxiety to perceived stress at the workplace. Presently, while many organizations are embracing diversity and stratification, an apparent laxity in taming innately malicious individuals or systems have seen a rise in cases of harassment and discrimination. The scope of such discrimination range from unfair hiring or biased treatment of individuals based on their race, gender (including pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability, among others. Harassment on the other hand relates to unwelcome conduct based on the unit or a combination of elements enumerated earlier. Apparently, such practices develop to become either a condition of employment or aggregate to levels severe enough to create an intimidating, hostile or abusive work environment. To that end, this study analyzes the dynamics of discrimination and harassment at the workplace, in the process delving into its psychological impacts on the individual as well as the labor laws that ought to protect workers from such crippling occurrences. Discrimination at the workplace The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC provides employees with a 180-day window period within which an individual, having experienced any form of discrimination or harassment at the workplace has to file a complaint. The EEOC has a mandate of protecting and fight for the rights of workers in matters relating to discrimination and harassment based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the pregnancy discrimination act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, EPA, Title 1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, ADA, to name but a few. Also included in these laws is The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 GINA that illegalizes the act of discriminating against employees or applicants based on their genetic information. The latest incident relating to employee harassment and/or discrimination involves Columbia S.C.- Correct Care Solutions, LLC, a Kansas based corporation that provides medical services to incarcerated persons in correctional institutions across the country. The EOCC recently filed a lawsuit against the company citing discrimination against a disabled employee who was forced to take medical leave, then unlawfully discharged of her duties. The stark contravention of Title 1 of ADA in the actions of Columbia S.C. points to the challenge the society continues to face in its attempt to embrace inclusivity and diversity at the workplace. The law provides that employers are obliged to reasonably accommodate the known physical or mental limitations of an individual provided the said person is adequately qualified. Since the case is still at the court pending hearing, the company’s only breath of life depends on ability to show, beyond any reasonable doubt that such an accommodation would have resulted in undue hardship on the operations of the employers business. A closer examination of the cause of such acts by organizations and/or individuals relates to the prevalent perception that disabled persons are comparatively weaker and more passive, an occurrence that according to Dipboye (2013) can lead to giving such persons easier work assignments, holding lower expectations, treatment as a lower-status group member among others. The impacts of such patronizing behaviors are twofold. First, the act may threaten the positive self-identity of the victim with long-lasting career effects. Secondly, the practice brings to fore the necessity to investigate the underlying causes of paternalism. If on one hand it stems from good, yet misplaced intentions i.e. that non-disabled people just want to be nice to their co-workers, then education on matters relating to the same will be enough to eradicate such discrimination. However, if the non-disabled use paternalism to communicate a perceived lower status of the individual, then education alone is inadequate to address such discrimination. For the latter case, approaching the situation as an intergroup problem might be more beneficial. Noteworthy is that paternalization can be individually or systematically perpetrated. A close examination of the Columbia S.C. case reveals that the dismissal of the employee was a result of system paternalization, in which the organization, through its management felt that the disabled individual was by herself a needy case. This resulted in the company having comparatively lower expectations on the individual, a phenomenon that catalyzed her dismissal. The institution of labor laws aimed at protecting the disabled is a result of the persistent stereotyping and misconceptions leveled against disabled persons. As observed by Riccucci (2015), the society neglects the needs of the disabled, misunderstands various disabilities thereby underestimating the individual’s capabilities, or is characteristically uncomfortable around disabled people. Thusly, in addition to enacting laws aimed at protecting the disabled from adverse organizational or societal practices, comprehensive education on positive interaction between the disabled and non-disabled, as well as on the impacts of negative group interactions is necessary. Harassment at the workplace The EOCC defines harassment as a form of discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 (ADA). Supplementary to these laws is the Occupational Health and Safety Act that requires employers to draft comprehensive workplace harassment policies. Accordingly, the policies must show employer’s commitment to addressing issues related to workplace harassment, consider all potential sources of harassment, customer, client, supervisor, etc. outline roles and responsibilities of parties to the policy and bear a signature of the highest-level management of the organization. The rather compound definition of the term ‘harassment’ gives it a broader scope, covering race, color, religion, sex, age, etc. Among these, the most prevalent harassment appears to be sexual. Conventionally, sexual harassment refers to inappropriate promise of reward in exchange for sexual favors. Often, such promise involves a more dominant figure, either male or female, though prevalence of the latter is comparatively less. One unanimous fact is that the society has incessantly defined rape as being different from intercourse. However, a closer review or real life situation reveals disturbing dynamics. When referring to a case where male, and in some instances female dominance is involved, it becomes difficult to distinguish the two. Consensual intercourse obtained through coercion or intimidation amounts to harassment, just like the case with outright rape ordeal. The confounding aside, despite the existence of laws that protect workers from sexual harassment at both state and federal levels, Lachman, in a post in the Huffington Post points to the apparent lack of laws that specifically protect interns within the country. While citing a recent case of the State of Connecticut that passed a bill relating to the same, the author laments that the idea is yet to pick up traction across the states in the country. Technically, interns are not employees, which mean they are not covered under the federal Civil Rights Act hence are not protected by the EEOC. While several cases have been reported around the country regarding harassment, virtually nit a single case is yet to be received from interns. Does this mean they are an immune lot? Does this imply that nearly the three quarters active female interns are safe when statistics show that women are disproportionately affected by workplace harassment? The reason, apparently, is simple. Interns do not report instances of harassment for fear of facing retaliation for pursuing such a complaint. The law provides for employer liability for harassment by a supervisor or any other stakeholder party if an action or actions of either results in negative employment action that include termination, failure to promote or hire an individual or loss of wages. It does specify, however, that if such actions result in hostile work environment, the employer may avoid liability if it reasonably tried to prevent such behavior or if the employee failed to take reasonable preventive measure availed by the employer. Additionally, the law also confers employer liability for harassment directed at non-supervisory employees or non-employees over whom it has control in the event that the employer was privy to such knowledge, or was supposed to be aware. A study by Klein et al. (2014) on the impacts of harassment and discrimination revealed startling information in either sex. Specifically, sexual harassment pollutes the work environment and often results in devastating effects on the victims’ health, morale, confidence and performance. The resulting anxiety and stress forces the victim to take a time-off from work due to sickness, produces less efficiency at work and may at times force the individual to quit and look for opportunities elsewhere. Numerous studies point to sexual harassment as the leading cause of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, high blood pressure, sleep problems and cases of suicide among otherwise healthy employees. Mitigating such effects require, in addition to legislative laws, societal education complimented with exceptional work ethics that value individualism and gender respect in light of sex dominance. Conclusion While it appears that the country has adequate laws to protect its citizens, and specifically employees from discrimination and harassment, the real picture on the ground suggests more ought to be done. Discrimination in the work place range from unfair hiring, race based bias, gender (including pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, and disability, among others. However, most significantly, sexual harassment cuts across all organizations with women being the most affected compared to men. Job categories, health status, and gender seem to be some of the primary factors influencing sexual harassment at the work place. It appears that most of these incidences go unreported due to fear of retribution, while the few that do have gone to trial and subsequently, delivery of justice. It is worth noting that discrimination and sexual harassment is one of the leading causes of work related depression, post-traumatic stress disorders, high blood pressure, insomnia, and cases of suicide among otherwise healthy employees. References Dipboye, R. & Collela, A. (2013). Discrimination at Work: The Psychological and Organizational Bases. New York, Psychology Press. Klein, S., Richardson, B., Grayson, D., Fox, L., Kramarae, C., Pollard, D. & Dwyer, C. (2014). Handbook for Achieving Gender Equity Through Education. London, Routledge. Lachman, S. (2015). A shocking number of states don’t protect unpaid interns from discrimination and sexual harassment. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/27/unpaid-interns-harassment_n_7453826.html Riccucci, N. (2015). Public Personnel Management. New York, Routledge. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2015). EOCC sues Correct Care Solutions for disability discrimination. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-19-15b.cfm Gumport, Patricia J. (2009). Academic Pathfinders. Information Age. Read More