There are first issues presented in the case study. The first is to determine whether the use of derogatory remarks towards an individual constitute sexual harassment. The second issue is to determine whether legal liability can fall on an employer following sexual harassment claims against its employees.
With regards to the definition of sexual harassment, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission defines sexual harassment as any unlawful conduct towards another individual based on their sex (EEOC, 1999) . It confines any remarks of a sexual nature in the definition set forth. The Commission, also, with mention of Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998), provides that the employer is liable for sexual harassment action if the harasser is a supervisor in the organization (EEOC, 1999) . In Duch v. Jakubek, 588 F.3d 757 (2d Cir. 2009), , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that an employer can be held vicariously liable for the actions of a coworker, and that, there should be evidence that the employer did not act against the harassment claims or provide necessary steps to prevent further harassment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In analyzing the case study, it is notable that by the definition of the law, the use of derogatory remarks towards and a coworker based on their sex is classifiable as a sexual harassment offense against the individual. The objective of the law was to discourage discrimination based on sex in the work place. This is because such discrimination would make the working environment unfavorable towards a specific demographic and result in the loss of equal employment opportunities. With regards to the second issue, it is annotated that the harasser was a coworker and therefore the organization could face liable. Also pertinent to the case is that both the harassed employee and the employer sought to prevent further harassment. However, the purpose of the law was to increase efforts by the employer to increase friendliness in the environment. The employer’s responsibility is to ensure that the working environment is equally safe for all employees of the organization. It is notable that prior to the raising of the claims against the remarks, the employer had not put in place measures that would prevent the occurrence of sexual harassment. This is evident with the existing practice that Jack found prevalent in the organization.
In conclusion therefore, the actions towards Jack by his coworkers were in deed sexual harassment and the employer shall be liable based on the fact that they negligently acted towards the continuing of the practice only acting when the claims were made.
References
Duch v. Jakubek, 588 F.3d 757 ( U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2009).
EEOC. (1999, June 18). Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors. Retrieved September 2017, from The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html
