Running head: Case 8.1 Jacksonville Shipyards
February 24, 2008
Sexual misconduct in the workplace has been a problem for women and in recent year’s men as well. Unfortunately, in the past this topic was overlooked until the case of Meritor Savings v. Vinson. We will establish the criteria for determining when unwelcome conduct of sexual nature constitutes harassment according to Title VII. Additionally, we will ascertain how to evaluate evidence of harassment, whether a work environment is sexually antagonistic, holding employers liable legally responsible for sexual harassment by supervisors; and analyzing preventive and corrective action taken in response to claims of sexual harassment.
The term sexual harassment, immediately, what comes to mind is a manager supervisor (male) making sexual advances to his subordinate (female) who reports to him, at risk of loosing her job if the demands are not met. Our work force has change and the incidence of harassment that does not fit this standard is increasing. According to The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in recent years published a report that indicated charges filed in 2006. (Gibbons 2007) The study showed that the number of male claiming to have been sexually harassed on the job has increased. In 1992, the report indicated 950 men filed sexual harassment charges compared to twice as much in 2006. Although, Title VII specifically states that it prohibits sex discrimination, the Commission issued guidelines in 1980 stating sexual harassment is a violation of Title VII, found criteria for determining “when unwelcome conduct of sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment , defining the circumstances under which an employer may be held liable, and suggesting affirmative steps an employer should take to prevent sexual harassment”.(Internet 2008) There are two forms of sexual...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document