a) person claiming they were harassed in the workplace must allege the following in order to first state the case with the EEOC.
1. Sexual harassment –quid pro quo-must show by use of superior evidence that the harasser made sexual advances or exhibited direct sexual behaviour towards him or her as a condition to reward them with employee benefits and avoid termination or other worse employment action. A victim must be able to prove by use of facts that they were an employee of the defendant, had applied for work to the defendant or was providing services to the harasser, that the harasser had made sexual advances or made verbal or physical conduct that was sexual towards them, that employee decisions or worker benefits were under conditions …show more content…
An example of harassment that falls both under quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment is a supervisor making undesired sexual advances towards their subordinate communicates an implicit threat to harmfully affect her job status if she does not cooperate.
e). A person would argue that the behaviour was illegal at work by proving that there was a hostile environment in which sexual harassment took place. Also the sexual advances must be unwelcomed by the victim and he or she should not have participated voluntarily
f). A company must have a written policy against all forms of discrimination since it is key in prevention of any types of discrimination or any forms of employee harassment in the workplace. It ensures that it is clear to all employees that no form of harassment or discrimination is tolerable in the organisation under any circumstances and prevents employers from suffering liabilities
g). No. this is because allowing females to serve females only and males to serve males only is a form of sex or gender discrimination which is covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
h). A company must have the following number of employees in the following …show more content…
Atlantic City Police Dept. “Ellerth and Faragher do not, as the defendant seem to assume, focus mechanically on the formal existence of a sexual harassment policy, allowing an absolute defence to a hostile work environment whenever the employer can point to an anti- harassment policy of some sort,” defendant failed to prove affirmative defence where it issued written policies without enforcing them , painted over expensive graphitti every few months only to see it up again in minutes, and failed to investigate sexual harassment as it investigated and punish other forms of misconduct. The jury Found that the ACPD, had committed discrimination against plaintiff based on her sex. The plaintiff was awarded $575 000 against the ACPD. Punitive damages were also awarded against the ACPD by the jury amounting to $700
1. Sexual harassment –quid pro quo-must show by use of superior evidence that the harasser made sexual advances or exhibited direct sexual behaviour towards him or her as a condition to reward them with employee benefits and avoid termination or other worse employment action. A victim must be able to prove by use of facts that they were an employee of the defendant, had applied for work to the defendant or was providing services to the harasser, that the harasser had made sexual advances or made verbal or physical conduct that was sexual towards them, that employee decisions or worker benefits were under conditions …show more content…
An example of harassment that falls both under quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment is a supervisor making undesired sexual advances towards their subordinate communicates an implicit threat to harmfully affect her job status if she does not cooperate.
e). A person would argue that the behaviour was illegal at work by proving that there was a hostile environment in which sexual harassment took place. Also the sexual advances must be unwelcomed by the victim and he or she should not have participated voluntarily
f). A company must have a written policy against all forms of discrimination since it is key in prevention of any types of discrimination or any forms of employee harassment in the workplace. It ensures that it is clear to all employees that no form of harassment or discrimination is tolerable in the organisation under any circumstances and prevents employers from suffering liabilities
g). No. this is because allowing females to serve females only and males to serve males only is a form of sex or gender discrimination which is covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
h). A company must have the following number of employees in the following …show more content…
Atlantic City Police Dept. “Ellerth and Faragher do not, as the defendant seem to assume, focus mechanically on the formal existence of a sexual harassment policy, allowing an absolute defence to a hostile work environment whenever the employer can point to an anti- harassment policy of some sort,” defendant failed to prove affirmative defence where it issued written policies without enforcing them , painted over expensive graphitti every few months only to see it up again in minutes, and failed to investigate sexual harassment as it investigated and punish other forms of misconduct. The jury Found that the ACPD, had committed discrimination against plaintiff based on her sex. The plaintiff was awarded $575 000 against the ACPD. Punitive damages were also awarded against the ACPD by the jury amounting to $700