Misplaced Affection: Sexual Harassment
Sexual Harassment is a serious crime as it is a willing sexual advance from one person to another. There are two forms, as defined by EEOC, quid pro quo that is when any sexual conduct is used to gain employment whether it is submission or rejection and hostile environment is any sexual conduct that has a purpose or effect of unreasonable interfering job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, offensive environment (Bohlander, 2007, p. 112). In this case, I saw there was sexual harassment by creating a hostile environment for Mrs. Beverly Gilbury by Mr. Peter Lewiston. Mr. Lewiston created this environment by spending more time at her classroom, sending flowers, letters and appearing at her car. Mrs. Gilbury frequently told Mr. Lewiston that they were friends. The initial injection for sexual harassment by the victim is valid but I’m shocked that she didn’t appear for the appeal. I would not have requested Mr. Lewiston be terminated but he would be suspended and sent to get help and training on what he did. The reason Mr. Lewiston would not be fired is that Mrs. Gilbury did not show up for the appeal. In my mind, that shows that it did not offend her as much as she said, she did not report this matter to her superiors and Mrs. Gilbury might have liked some of the attention she first got from Mr. Lewiston as she said, “it has been a long time since anyone sent me flower.” Loneliness is no reason to pursue someone in a manner that can create such distain that it affects ones job. Most people will feel lonely but to sexually harass someone is evil. The best thing to do when you get lonely is to seek help from a psychiatrist but there are other alternatives like join a social club. As there is evidence of sexual harassment by Mr. Lewiston, but because Mrs. Gilbury did not show up for the injunction poses the question does she really want the injunction? I believe that termination is extreme as training and counseling...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document