The Matter Of Sexual Harassment Human Resource Strategies

The Matter of Sexual Harassment Human Resource Strategies The Matter of Sexual Harassment

Evaluate the conduct of Peter Lewiston against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment. Should the intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities? Explain. If you were the district’s EEOC officer, what would you conclude? What disciplinary action, if any, would you take?

Paper For Above instruction

Sexual harassment remains a pervasive issue in the workplace, impacting individuals’ well-being and organizational integrity. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), sexual harassment encompasses unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, interferes with work performance, or creates a hostile work environment (EEOC, 2020). Analyzing the case of Peter Lewiston, it is crucial to evaluate his conduct within the framework of this legal definition and the broader organizational policies on harassment. Furthermore, understanding whether the intent behind such conduct influences legal and ethical judgments is vital for appropriate disciplinary and preventive measures.

Assessment of Lewiston’s Conduct Against the EEOC’s Definition

Peter Lewiston’s actions, as described, undeniably align with the EEOC’s criteria for sexual harassment, particularly in creating a sexually hostile environment for Beverly Gilbury. His repeated unsolicited gestures—sending roses, handwritten notes, and insisting on lunch—constitute unwelcome advances. The behavioral patterns exhibited by Lewiston, including persistent attempts to develop a personal relationship despite explicit signals from Gilbury that she was uncomfortable, exemplify unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. The physical interaction when Lewiston reached inside Gilbury’s car and touched her head, despite her protests, further reinforces the classification of his conduct as sexual harassment (EEOC, 2020).

Importantly, the EEOC emphasizes that the conduct must be unwelcome from the perspective of the victim, regardless of the harasser’s intentions. This means that even if Lewiston claimed innocence or lack of malicious intent, his actions may still constitute harassment if they were unwelcome and created an intimidating or hostile environment (EEOC, 2020). The fact that Gilbury expressed her discomfort and Lewiston disregarded her boundaries indicates his conduct was unwelcome, and thus, falls squarely within the degree of severity contemplated by legal standards.

Should the Intent or Motive be Considered?

The debate over whether intent or motive should influence legal assessments of sexual harassment is longstanding. From a legal perspective, the EEOC and courts generally emphasize the effect of the conduct on the victim, rather than the harasser’s intent. The primary concern is whether the behavior was unwelcome and whether it contributed to a hostile or abusive work environment (Birmingham & Walker, 2018). For instance, in Faragher v. Boca Raton (1998), the Supreme Court underscored that liability hinges on the conduct’s unwelcome nature and its impact, rather than the harasser’s intention.

Considering Lewiston’s motive, it appears that his actions were driven by loneliness and an attempt at personal connection, which might evoke some sympathy. However, in a workplace context, personal motives do not justify inappropriate conduct. The critical factor remains whether the conduct was unwelcome—and in this case, Gilbury clearly indicated her discomfort and desire to maintain professional boundaries. Therefore, the motive behind Lewiston’s actions is secondary to the fact that the conduct was unwelcome and detrimental to the victim's sense of safety and comfort.

EEOC Officer’s Conclusion and Disciplinary Actions

If I were the district’s EEOC officer, my conclusion would be that Peter Lewiston’s behavior constitutes sexual harassment as defined by the EEOC. His repeated unsolicited attention, physical contact, and persistent attempts to pursue a personal relationship despite explicit disavowal by Gilbury demonstrate conduct that creates a hostile work environment. These actions undermine workplace safety and violate federal statutes and district policies designed to prevent harassment.

In terms of discipline, the recommendation would be immediate termination of Lewiston’s employment, considering the severity and persistence of his actions and the harm caused to Gilbury. The imposition of a suspension or counseling could be considered in less severe cases, but given the pattern of behavior and the potential for recurrence, discharge is justified. Additionally, the district should implement or reinforce comprehensive training programs on sexual harassment for all employees to prevent future incidents. It is equally important to establish clear reporting protocols and effective responses to complaints, ensuring victims feel safe and supported.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Lewiston’s conduct aligns with the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment, primarily because it involved unwelcome sexual advances that created a hostile working environment. The intent behind his actions does not alter the assessment; rather, the focus remains on whether the conduct was unwelcome and whether it affected the victim’s work environment. As an EEOC officer, immediate disciplinary action—preferably termination—and proactive organizational policies are necessary to uphold workplace integrity and safeguard employees’ rights. Addressing sexual harassment comprehensively ensures compliance with legal mandates and fosters a respectful and safe organizational culture.

References

  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (2020). Sexual Harassment. EEOC.gov. https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment
  • Birmingham, D. & Walker, L. (2018). Workplace Harassment Law and Practice. Harvard Law Review, 134(2), 301-322.
  • Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
  • Schultz, J. M. (2017). Preventing Workplace Sexual Harassment: Legal and Organizational Perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(1), 61-75.
  • National Network to End Domestic Violence. (2019). Creating Safe Work Environments. NNEDV.org.
  • Smith, R. & Jones, P. (2021). Organizational Strategies to Address Sexual Harassment. Journal of Human Resources, 56(4), 987-1005.
  • U.S. Department of Labor. (2022). Workplace Rights and Responsibilities. DOL.gov.
  • Miller, T. (2019). The Impact of Harassment on Employee Wellbeing. Organizational Psychology Review, 9(3), 254-268.
  • Johnson, L. (2020). Training and Policy Development for Harassment Prevention. HR Magazine, 65(5), 34-39.
  • Williams, S. (2018). The Role of Organizational Culture in Combating Sexual Harassment. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(2), 217-236.

Related Assignments