Assignment 1: HR Management Imagine you are the HR manager at a company, and a female employee came to you upset because she felt a male coworker was creating a hostile work environment by repeatedly

Assignment 1: HR Management

Imagine you are the HR manager at a company, and a female employee came to you upset because she felt a male coworker was creating a hostile work environment by repeatedly asking her out on dates even after she said “no”. What would you do?

Write a one (1) page paper in which you:

1. Formulate the conversation you would have with the employee, based the concepts found in Chapter 2 in your textbook.
2. Summarize the conversation you would have with the employee’s male co-worker, based on the concepts found in Chapter 2 of your textbook.
3. Format your assignment according to the following formatting requirements:
   1. Typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides.  
4. 1.         ((((((((CHAPTER 2-THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT))))))))))

      2-2d Sexual Harassment at Work

      One final area of coverage for the Civil Rights Act that is critical to the human resource manager is sexual harassment. This area is particularly important in this context because much of the litigation and the organization’s liability in these cases depend on the initial responses to charges of sexual harassment, and these responses are typically the responsibility of someone in human resources. Sexual harassment is defined by the EEOC as unwelcome sexual advances in the work environment. If the conduct is indeed unwelcome and occurs with sufficient frequency to create an abusive work environment, the employer is responsible for changing the environment by warning, reprimanding, or perhaps firing the harasser.22 

      The courts have ruled that there are two types of sexual harassment and have defined both types. One type of sexual harassment is quid pro quo harassment. In this case, the harasser offers to exchange something of value for sexual favors. For example, a male supervisor might tell or imply to a female subordinate that he will recommend her for promotion or provide her with a salary increase, but only if she sleeps with him. Although this type of situation definitely occurs, organizations generally have no problem in understanding that it is illegal and in knowing how to respond.

      Quid pro quo harassment is sexual harassment in which the harasser offers to exchange something of value for sexual favors.

      But a more subtle (and probably more common) type of sexual harassment is the creation of a hostile work environment, and this situation is not always so easy to define. For example, a group of male employees who continually make off-color jokes and lewd comments and perhaps decorate the work environment with inappropriate photographs may create a hostile work environment for a female colleague to the point where she is uncomfortable working in that job setting. Most experts would agree that this situation constitutes sexual harassment. But the situation becomes more complicated if an employee walks by a colleague’s workstation and sees a suggestive website or photo on their computer screen.

      A hostile work environment is one that produces sexual harassment because of a climate or culture that is punitive toward people of a different gender.

      In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Supreme Court noted that a hostile work environment constitutes sexual harassment, even if the employee did not suffer any economic penalties or was not threatened with any such penalties.23 In Harris v. Forklift Systems, the Court ruled that the plaintiff did not have to suffer substantial mental distress to receive a jury settlement.24 Hence, it is critical that organizations monitor the situation and be alert for these instances because, as noted, it is the organization’s responsibility for dealing with this sort of problem.25

      Therefore, the human resource manager must play a major role in investigating  any hint of sexual harassment in the organization. The manager cannot simply wait for an employee to complain. Although the Court had ruled in the case of Scott v. Sears Roebuck26 that the employer was not liable for the sexual harassment because the plaintiff did not complain to supervisors, the ruling in the Meritor case makes it much more difficult for the organization to avoid liability by claiming ignorance (although this liability is not automatic). This responsibility is further complicated by the fact that, although most sexual harassment cases involve men harassing women, there are, of course, many other situations of sexual harassment that can be identified. Females can harass men, and in the case of Oncale v. Sundowner the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a male oil rigger who claimed to be harassed by his co-workers and supervisor on an offshore oil rig was indeed the victim of sexual harassment.29 Several recent cases involving same-sex harassment have focused new attention on this form of sexual harassment.30 Regardless of the pattern, however, the same rules apply: Sexual harassment is illegal, and it is the organization’s responsibility to control it. 

      In 2011, everyone in the United States was reminded of exactly how troubling charges of sexual harassment can be. Herman Cain, a retired executive running for the Republican presidential nomination, found his popularity growing when rumors began coming to light about past sexual harassment. Mr. Cain denied all wrongdoing but, as several women stood up to claim they were harassed by him, and evidence of payments to some of these women came to light, it became more difficult for him to remain a viable candidate.

      Finally, while still denying any wrongdoing, Mr. Cain suspended his candidacy after discussing matters with his wife. Finally, a recent Supreme Court decision appears to make it more difficult for an employee to successfully bring suit for harassment. In Vance v. Ball State the Court ruled that only someone with the power to hire and fire should be considered a supervisor in a case involving discrimination. The clear effect of this ruling is to make it much more difficult to bring charges against a co-worker for sexually or racially motivated harassment. It will be interesting to see if this ruling really does reduce harassment charges at work.