Singleton v. Department of Correctional Education
Men tend to be vocal when they encounter an attractive woman, specifically around their male counter parts. But what happens when a male coworker makes comments to a female colleague regarding her appearance. There is nothing wrong with making statements towards a woman’s beauty. Several years ago, sexual harassment on the job was viewed as “a little out of line,” but the attitude is changing (Middleton, 1980, p.703). However, in the case of Ms. Mary Ann Singleton versus the Virginia Department of Correctional Education one would site with the courts in Ms. Mary Ann Singleton failed to prove she worked in a hostile work environment. Thus, dismissing the claim of sexual harassment and retaliation …show more content…
Her responsibilities encompassed the maintenance, purchase, and processing of library materials, in addition to training inmate workers. Even though Ms. Singleton and her harasser worked within Virginia’s Executive Branch, they were both responsible for reporting to the Secretary of Public Safety. Ms. Singleton, an employee of DOE and her aggressor a worker of DOC. Mr. Elmer E Shinault, an Assistant Warden for operations began harassing Ms. Singleton. She claims that Mr. Shinault offending conduct occurred four times a week and progressively got worse. Her biggest complaint was that Mr. Shinault would engage in conversation with her supervisor, making comments that she should be “spanked” daily (Walsh, 2013, p.306). Mr. Shinault consistently gave her compliments regarding her daily appearance and often stared at her breast while talking to her. On one occasion, she claims he measured the length of her skirt to ensure it followed the prison’s dress code plus mentioning how well the skirt looked on her. Moreover, he constantly told her how pretty she was and how she maintained her physical physique in excellent shape. He immensely recited to Ms. Singleton that …show more content…
Singleton did encounter harassment but had no grounds to further pursue in court regarding a hostile work environment. After all, Mr. Shinault never touched her in appropriately. Additionally, Ms. Singleton could not prove it was unwelcomed behavior, or his comportment is strictly based on her sex, and there was no evidence to severely alter the conditions of her employment creating an abusive work environment for her and other coworkers. Although the conduct that she complains of, is considered boorish and offensive, it is more comparable to the kind of rude behavior, teasing and offhand comments that lack sufficient severity and pervasive to constitute sexual harassment and hostile work environment. In the state of Virginia, a person must be able to prove without a doubt that the aggressor requested a sexual act, touched her inappropriately, discussed sexual content, showed her obscene materials, told her vulgar jokes, or threatened her. Furthermore, none of Mr. Shinault actions made her fear for her life or her ability to perform her job or her assigned responsibilities as a DOC employee.
References
Middleton, M. (1980). Sex Harassment on Job: New Rules Issued. American Bar Association Journal, 66(6), 703.
Tuttle, C. (1990). Sexual Harassment Is No Joke. Management Review, 79(8),
Men tend to be vocal when they encounter an attractive woman, specifically around their male counter parts. But what happens when a male coworker makes comments to a female colleague regarding her appearance. There is nothing wrong with making statements towards a woman’s beauty. Several years ago, sexual harassment on the job was viewed as “a little out of line,” but the attitude is changing (Middleton, 1980, p.703). However, in the case of Ms. Mary Ann Singleton versus the Virginia Department of Correctional Education one would site with the courts in Ms. Mary Ann Singleton failed to prove she worked in a hostile work environment. Thus, dismissing the claim of sexual harassment and retaliation …show more content…
Her responsibilities encompassed the maintenance, purchase, and processing of library materials, in addition to training inmate workers. Even though Ms. Singleton and her harasser worked within Virginia’s Executive Branch, they were both responsible for reporting to the Secretary of Public Safety. Ms. Singleton, an employee of DOE and her aggressor a worker of DOC. Mr. Elmer E Shinault, an Assistant Warden for operations began harassing Ms. Singleton. She claims that Mr. Shinault offending conduct occurred four times a week and progressively got worse. Her biggest complaint was that Mr. Shinault would engage in conversation with her supervisor, making comments that she should be “spanked” daily (Walsh, 2013, p.306). Mr. Shinault consistently gave her compliments regarding her daily appearance and often stared at her breast while talking to her. On one occasion, she claims he measured the length of her skirt to ensure it followed the prison’s dress code plus mentioning how well the skirt looked on her. Moreover, he constantly told her how pretty she was and how she maintained her physical physique in excellent shape. He immensely recited to Ms. Singleton that …show more content…
Singleton did encounter harassment but had no grounds to further pursue in court regarding a hostile work environment. After all, Mr. Shinault never touched her in appropriately. Additionally, Ms. Singleton could not prove it was unwelcomed behavior, or his comportment is strictly based on her sex, and there was no evidence to severely alter the conditions of her employment creating an abusive work environment for her and other coworkers. Although the conduct that she complains of, is considered boorish and offensive, it is more comparable to the kind of rude behavior, teasing and offhand comments that lack sufficient severity and pervasive to constitute sexual harassment and hostile work environment. In the state of Virginia, a person must be able to prove without a doubt that the aggressor requested a sexual act, touched her inappropriately, discussed sexual content, showed her obscene materials, told her vulgar jokes, or threatened her. Furthermore, none of Mr. Shinault actions made her fear for her life or her ability to perform her job or her assigned responsibilities as a DOC employee.
References
Middleton, M. (1980). Sex Harassment on Job: New Rules Issued. American Bar Association Journal, 66(6), 703.
Tuttle, C. (1990). Sexual Harassment Is No Joke. Management Review, 79(8),