The case study "Misplaced Affections: Discharge for Sexual Harassment" is based on a workplace sexual harassment occurrence. In this case, two coworkers are involved in a relationship that develops into a harassment situation. The two coworkers are Beverly Gilbury, a schoolteacher, and Peter Lewiston is a maintenance worker and a widowed man. Both of them work for the Pine Circle Unified School District. Lewiston insisted on creating a love relationship with Gilbury, despite her wish to keep the friendship a professional connection. Owing to Lewiston's continuous advances, she eventually filed a sexual harassment complaint against him. As protracted herein, an in-depth evaluation of the case is crucial in determining the penalties Lewiston should face.
Question 1
Sexual harassment is a multifaceted and complex type of human rights violation. According to the EEOC, It is "unwelcome, advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature” (EEOC, n.d., para.1). According to the agency, one's acts are a form of violation if they directly or indirectly influence another person's employment and significantly interfere with their work performance. Further, sexual harassment can also be perpetrated by either men or women, and in certain circumstances, both persons may be of the same gender. According to the EEOC, there are two distinct forms of one can be sexually harassed. The first form is collegial harassment. t is frequently a situation involving a supervisor and a subordinate or other coworker. Giving sexual favors in exchange for preferred employment treatment or as leverage for job or promotion benefits is a typical pattern to perpetrate the harassment. Considering Livingston is not in a supervisory role, the case of Lewiston and Gilbury does not fall under this category of harassment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Subsequently, according to the EEOC categorization, the second form of sexual harassment is the hostile environment in the workplace. This sort of harassment occurs when the victim is frightened and uncomfortable by another person's conduct that could negatively affect their well-being and performance or create an aggressive, uncomfortable, or unpleasant workplace setting. A hostile environment may be difficult to identify as the behavior is not always motivated by sexual relations. It could also include insulting photographs at the workplace, inappropriate jokes or comments, and persistent requests for one person to accompany another to love affair meetings.
According to the EEOC's sexual harassment definition, Lewiston's conduct implies that he created a hostile work environment for Gilbury. Even though Lewiston was aware of her marital status, he continued to make sexual advances at her. In his pursuit of a love relationship, he began making unexpected and frequent visits to her classroom, making her uneasy. The practice was not part of the maintenance workers' everyday routine at the school. He was also very relentless in gifting her roses with love notes and inviting her to love affair meetings, which she declined as she was happily married and could not accept his requests. In one case, she confided in a coworker about her distressing experience. She expressed her discomfort and concern that he would become more intimate with her, indicating that she was frightened. She was also frightened by Lewiston's act of following her by suddenly appearing near her vehicle and attempting to touch her. Her agitation as a result of the incident indicates that she was psychologically affected. Lewiston's behavior made working for her a difficult experience. As a result, Livingston's actions toward Gilbury constitute hostile work environment sexual harassment.
Question 2
When evaluating sexual harassment activities, considering the motivation behind Lewiston's actions is necessary. The managers should examine his motives to know if a misunderstanding on his part caused the scenario. A benign gesture can sometimes be misinterpreted as harassment. Sexual harassment, according to Armstead (2013), might begin with simple and normal behaviors such as general remarks, touch, or hugging. However, in cases of sexual harassment, it is the impressions and the impacts of the conduct that determine whether it is sexual harassment. If this behavior is not properly addressed, it might result in a stressful work environment and increasing behavior actions. However, the conduct progressively increases to intimate and romantic behaviors that the victims did not anticipate. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, sexual harassment claims have increased dramatically during the last two decades (Murad, 2020). It is imperative for law enforcement bodies to investigate and charge the perpetrators of sexual assault cases. In the case study context, evidence such as notes and cards can reflect Lewiston's objectives. Relatedly, most cases of sexual assault are motivated by deliberate behaviors such as violent sexual relations, threats, or misuse of professional positions. Although Lewiston was an elderly gentleman who had been a widower for several years, he had love affections for Gilbury, who politely spurned his approaches by informing him that she was happily married on several occasions. His continuous advances to the point where he appeared near her vehicle and startled her. His action indicates he was doing it on purpose and could be willing to go to any extent to persuade her to like him. To determine the sexual harassment actions, a thorough investigation of Lewiston's circumstance and his behavior toward Gilbury is necessary.
Question 3
For various reasons, as a district officer for the EEOC investigating the Gilbury versus Lewiston case, I would determine that Lewiston was guilty of sexual harassment. Despite Gilbury's insistence on maintaining a professional and collegial connection, Livingston persisted in having an intimate relationship. He made several inappropriate remarks, including telling Gilbury that he liked her and she had lovely eyes. Such comments suggest that Lewiston was attempting to attract her attention and initiate a romantic relationship with her. He further sent her roses on several additional times, and in the cards, he expressed his romantic sentiments for her. The letter's content, in my opinion, implies that he was obsessed and romantic with her. The cards would be evidence of the sexual harassment charge against him. Though he had been working with the district for eleven years, he was aware of the policies stipulated by the US Civil Rights office discouraging sexual harassment at the workplace (State, 2020). Also, his failure to cease his actions tarnished the school district's image. Mrs. Gilbury worked in an unpleasant and hostile environment due to his constant advances and eventual stalking. Considering he disregarded the workplace rules, I would propose instant termination as a disciplinary penalty.
On the other hand, I would dispute Gilbury's interest in preventing the incident from developing. She initially notified a fellow teacher about the incidents, expressing her concern that Lewiston may make romantic advances towards her. As such, her suspicions indicate that her interaction with him would almost certainly lead to physical contact. If she was worried enough to tell another teacher, she should have alerted the school principal about the incident. The event of Lewiston stalking and physically contacting her would not have happened if the principal had been involved. Perceivably, she likely bolstered his romantic advances by noting that she had not received flowers in a long time. She should have returned the flowers to him and warned him not to do it again. From this perspective, I believe Gilbury was instrumental in increasing her connection with Lewiston. Accusing someone of sexual harassment is a serious charge that, if proven, could plague them for the rest of their professional life. Worse, the accused could be charged with a crime. As a result, I would also advocate training sessions to educate the school employees on sexual harassment and effective strategies to prevent it from spreading.
References
Armstead, M. (2013, June 20). Intent versus impact -- workplace sexual assault and harassment. https://www.army.mil/article/106054/intent_versus_impact_workplace_sexual_assault_and_harassment.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (n.d). Sexual Harassment . https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment.
Murad, K. (2020, February 17). Sexual Harassment in the Workplace . https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace.aspx.
U.S. Department of State. (2020, December 1). Sexual Harassment Policy - United States Department of State . https://www.state.gov/key-topics-office-of-civil-rights/sexual-harassment-policy/.
