when Tom began kissing Sara. When Tom locked Sara against the wall and started kissing her it was a form of touching that was offensive and non-consensual. Sara didn’t give Tom permission to lock her against the wall or to kiss her.
This incident involves sexual harassment (which is also a subsection of gender harassment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) in the form of quid pro quo because it was “something in exchange for something else.” For example, Sara might have started flirting with Tom in exchange for information about the new product developments and for information about the new product that was going to be released soon and Tom might have kissed Sara simply because he thought it was a fair exchange for giving her information on the new research and product developments happening in the company.
This incident is also a form of momentary false imprisonment because Sara was intentionally confined and restrained by Tom when he locked her up against the wall and started kissing her. The confinement was done through physical restraint. Moreover, Sara did not comply with the restraint willingly. Sara did not agree to being restrained by Tom and she did not agree to being locked up against the wall and being …show more content…
The A human resource manager looked through Sara’s employment contract and sees that the former HR manager had Sara sign a confidentiality contract and the HR manager says that Sara had failed two drug tests over the years and had been warned that she would be terminated for a third failure. I think that the HR manager might be upset because Sara called the EEOC and reported the incident and now Company A has to deal with the incident. I would argue that the HR manager is looking for a reason to fire Sara because of this incident. Moreover, the manager specifically brought up the fact that Sara had failed two previous drug tests, but this incident has nothing to do with
This incident involves sexual harassment (which is also a subsection of gender harassment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) in the form of quid pro quo because it was “something in exchange for something else.” For example, Sara might have started flirting with Tom in exchange for information about the new product developments and for information about the new product that was going to be released soon and Tom might have kissed Sara simply because he thought it was a fair exchange for giving her information on the new research and product developments happening in the company.
This incident is also a form of momentary false imprisonment because Sara was intentionally confined and restrained by Tom when he locked her up against the wall and started kissing her. The confinement was done through physical restraint. Moreover, Sara did not comply with the restraint willingly. Sara did not agree to being restrained by Tom and she did not agree to being locked up against the wall and being …show more content…
The A human resource manager looked through Sara’s employment contract and sees that the former HR manager had Sara sign a confidentiality contract and the HR manager says that Sara had failed two drug tests over the years and had been warned that she would be terminated for a third failure. I think that the HR manager might be upset because Sara called the EEOC and reported the incident and now Company A has to deal with the incident. I would argue that the HR manager is looking for a reason to fire Sara because of this incident. Moreover, the manager specifically brought up the fact that Sara had failed two previous drug tests, but this incident has nothing to do with