Harassment at the workplace is common with victims mainly being unsure about acts within the workplace that qualify as harassment ( Karsten, 2016) . Continuous studies have shown that the American workplace society is marred by cases of harassment and creation of hostile working environments. In many cases where harassment at workplaces goes unreported, it acts as a prerequisite for continued harassment creating an environment that is toxic and unproductive. It is therefore paramount for organizations to have a definite structure within which harassment is tackled. The case of Martha and the encounters she has had on harassment acts as a good example of how harassment cases start and the appropriate ways in which lasting solutions can be found.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 And 1991
Several legislations have been passed both at the state and federal levels to create a conducive working environment that is free from harassment and where harassment exist victims are continuously being encouraged to report. Additionally, organizations are making progress in formulating work ethics within which employees ought to adhere to in efforts to check harassment. The ‘Civil Rights Act of 1964’ forms one of the most commendable legislations engineered at fighting workplace harassment and which human resource managers need to know ( Karsten, 2016) . The 1964 Act prohibits employment discrimination by sex, race, natural origin, color as well as religion.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
John being Martha’s employer is violating the 1964 Act by discriminating Martha in the workplace by sex. Having worked at John’s organization for two years, Martha was getting exemplary reviews which are suddenly changing after Martha decides to quit seeing John. Martha is now getting poor reviews with other managers also starting to make comments about her poor attitude. John is discriminating against Martha and using her decision not to see him again as a tool of tormenting her at work.
The CRA of 1991 works to add strength to the CRA of 1964 requiring that requiring victims of workplace harassment to provide solid proof of harassment. As such, it is expected by the human resource manager that Martha proofs that indeed John is discriminating her at the workplace to ensure action is taken.
Quid Pro Quo Harassment
It can be argued that Martha forms part of the quid pro quo harassment perpetrated by John. The form of harassment occurs where an employee in authority makes hints of giving a junior employee reprimand or firing unless the junior employee gives in on sexual demands ( Guerin, 2016) . Since Martha has decided to stop seeing John personally, John has made it clear that Martha will be sorry and that he would see to it that she regrets. As such, John’s comments qualify as harassment towards Martha unless she continues seeing John. Subsequently, Martha’s continued employment is pegged on to see John.
Additionally, the fact that Martha has started receiving negative comments about her work performance from John as well as other senior managers shows that indeed John is making true his words. The harassment meted on Martha shows that unless she cedes ground for John’s advances her employment is at stake.
Hostile Work Environment
Work environments are expected to be friendly and supportive to enhance employee productivity. An environment is deemed hostile to work when a co-worker or a boss act in ways to make it impossible for an employee to deliver within their workplaces ( Guerin, 2016) . It can be argued that since Martha’s refusal to continue seeing John, she has been faced by behavior from John that is making her work impossible. The continuing poor performance evaluations which can act as a basis for her dismissal from work are derailing her efforts to deliver on her mandate. John’s threat, additionally, has made it hard for her to continue with her job routinely. Subsequently, Martha is experiencing a hostile work environment since she is sure that she has been doing quality work in spite of the poor performance evaluations.
HR’s obligation to employees
Human resource managers have an obligation of preserving employee-employer relations by undertaking investigations as well as finding amicable solutions to workplace issues. Since Martha has started her case to her HR, it is paramount the HR will initiate an investigation to find out the facts about John’s alleged harassment towards Martha. It would be required that the HR considers taking the evaluations and reviews that Martha was having before her encounters with John and make comparisons with the emerging trend after deciding to stop seeing John. Also, the HR is expected to review the organization's policies and make a determination of the possible regulations that affect the case between John and Martha.
HR acts as primary contacts during legal counsel where litigation involving employee relation is in process. In the case that John is found guilty of having harassed Martha sexually and charges are pressed against him, the human resource manager is obliged to act as the primary contact in the litigation. Consequently, the HR will provide facts and conclusions that he has made during the investigations that he launched to protect Martha as an employee and find appropriate remedies to the case.
In a situation where the HR finds that Martha is telling the truth, need arises to comply with the EEOC policies. First, the HR ought to explain clearly the prohibited act that John has committed and provide an assurance that Martha will be protected from retaliation by John or other senior managers given her decision to complain about alleged harassment. The HR must explore the possible avenues of complaint that can be taken while giving an assurance that the confidentiality of the harassment complaint will be protected as much as possible. It is also needful that immediate action is taken coupled with an appropriate corrective action against John for his sexual harassment actions towards Martha.
Several instances create an opportunity for HR to offer an affirmative defense and prevail in a lawsuit and avoid liability for the actions of the senior employee. First, Grossman (2016) argues that if the complaining employee has not had any adverse employment action taken against the employee by the employer an affirmative defense may be put up. In this case, the HR can argue that adverse actions such as demotion, firing or reassignment have not been meted against Martha. Second, affirmative defense can be rooted because the employer acted swiftly and promptly to correct any behavior amounting to sexual harassment ( Grossman, 2016) . In the case that the HR undertook prompt investigations into Martha’s complaint and acted to prevent John from harassing her immediately, the HR can win the lawsuit through the affirmative defense. Additionally, instances, where the culprit of harassment is demoted or fired, may also work to the advantage of the HR resulting in a win in the lawsuit.
Likely Outcomes and Remedies
It is likely that John would be found guilty of making sexual harassment advances towards Martha. The fact that the two-year records of exemplary reviews can be found and compared to the recent records showing poor performance evaluations can act as evidence that indeed John has used employment to advance his sexual agenda towards Martha. In a case where it is established that John used other means to make life miserable for Martha at the workplace, John will be found culpable of sexually harassing Martha.
Finding John culpable of advancing sexual harassment towards Martha and creating a hostile working environment necessitates a need to put in place remedies by the HR within the workplace. Among the possible remedies is for Martha to win an injunction requiring that the organization stops sexual harassment and other actions that make the working environment hostile. Such a remedy may require the organization to set up a sexual harassment policy showing the possible outcomes for individuals who are found guilty of advancing sexual harassment as well as creating a hostile work environment ( Grossman, 2016) . Additionally, Martha can be entitled to damages as a form of compensation for the mental anguish that she underwent when John made her life at the workplace miserable.
It is therefore critical to have a working mechanism to prevent workplace harassment with continuous reviews of the mechanism to ensure that all aspects of harassment are captured. Additionally, employees should take the initiative to protect themselves from harassment and other actions that make working environments hostile.
References
Grossman, J. L. (2016). Nine to five: How gender, sex, and sexuality continue to define the American workplace .
Guerin, L. (2016). The essential guide to workplace investigations: A step-by-step guide to handling employee complaints & problems .
Karsten, M. F. (2016). Gender, race, and ethnicity in the workplace: Emerging issues and enduring challenges .
