Analysis Of EEOC Vs. Federal Express

2298 Words 10 Pages
Register to read the introduction… Federal Express (1995). A courier was harassed by a customer on her route. The customer made such comments as saying she looked better without any clothes on and repeatedly asked her out on dates. She brought this issue up with her supervisor who wrote to the customer asking him to refrain from ?any future conduct that could be perceived as offensive or intimidating?. The harassment continued and the whole building, not just the tenant was taken away from her route. The courts ruled in favor of the employees even though the company had taken action to end the harassment. The courier was awarded due to the fact that no replacement building was given to her, which resulted in a loss of pay. The court stated that she was ?in effect, punished for her …show more content…
Costle. The plaintiff rebuffed her director?s repeated sexual overtures. She ignored his advice that sexual intimacy was the path she should take to improve her career opportunities. Her job was abolished. This is a perfect example of ?quid pro quo? in which the victim was ruled in favor of.

The more common form of sexual harassment a hostile environment. This refers to sexual conduct that unreasonably interferes with an employee?s performance at work or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. An environment can include another person, areas, or inanimate objects. Sexual jokes, leering, and showing pornographic materials are all examples of a hostile work environment.

Sexual harassment mainly exists due to the harasser?s abuse of power. Sexual harassment is not always about sex. It is more of an issue of power and the abuse of power. People often stereotype the victim as subservient and powerless. Employers are responsible for actions of all employees even if they are unaware of the behavior. Employers will also be liable is if they fail to take appropriate action within its control once it knows or has reason to know of the harassing. They cannot claim they did not know because the employee did not tell them. There is no such thing as taking ?no action?. Doing nothing can have huge legal
…show more content…
Someone can still comment on how nice someone looks or tell a sexual joke. The Supreme Court allows for sexual talk up until an employee is discriminated against. The key ingredient of sexual harassment is some form of sexual content and discrimination. This is unfair treatment of employees because of their sex. Sexual content does not necessarily mean unfair treatment, such as a sexual joke. People need to realize the extent of comments and jokes that they can tell around certain people. Some get offended more easily than others. What constitutes sexual harassment to one person may not be sexual harassment to

Related Documents