Case Study on Sexual Harassment

The civil rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual harassment to individuals at workplaces in
their private or public institutions. The question is, what is sexual harassment? Sexual
harassment is unwelcome conduct by one to another that interferes with the other person's
performance and creates an intimidating, abusive, or hostile environment. Behaviors like
conditional promotions or favors account for sexual harassment in the workplace if there is
evidence. The burden of proof lies with the plaintive if it is a tort; otherwise, it lies with the state
if it is a criminal offense. Quid pro quo is when the harassment is coming from a superior person,
but in this case, the harassment is from a hostile environment point of view (Hawkins, 2020).
According to this case study, it is true that the employee was sexually harassed. But the
harassment is coming from a third party that is a client; it is a hostile environment type of
harassment. The laws of sexual harassment in an institution like the hotel apply when it is
between employees or an employee and the employer. The management of the hotel is left in a
challenging position. The employee telling the manger is a good thing, and the boss is now liable
for any future abuse occurrence. The tough question is, what will she do to stop it and still retain
the customer who is a frequent visitor to the hotel. The manager's easiest option will be to
assume that nothing happened and continue with business as usual.
If the institution receives sexual harassment allegations, as they did in this case, or it has
enough reason to believe that someone is sexually harassed in their institution, then the
institution is in a position to address the issue and put an end to it or take necessary action
against the perpetrators. The law allows the institution to take relevant action to stop sexual
harassment even if the individual being harassed does not want to file a complaint. Sexual
harassment is supposed to be reported to the Office of Civil Rights; supervisors witnessing such

CASE STUDY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT 3
abuses should report, and failing to report can lead to disciplinary actions against the witnesses
(Abrams, 2019). Myma, the waitress, placed her boss in a difficult position by reporting the
incident to her. Yes, the law protects her at both the federal level and under this policy. Still, she
is the institution's manager and has to also ensure the institution's survival by retaining its
customers.
According to federal law, this organization is a private institution, and private institutions
have a rule that guides them through their operations. The court's decision is influenced by this
law though if out of their jurisdiction, then the court can either dismiss the case on the grounds
they will mention. If the court finds out that the law, either a criminal offense or law of tort, is
broken, it takes relevant action subject to the local law (Hawkins, 2020). A good example is in
the case of Ms. Reeves, who worked as a sales representative in Birmingham Ala, she was the
only woman working in the team of males in this transport industry. She complained about
sexual harassment from her coworkers and supervisors as well. She said that the music plaid at
her workstation made the environment unconducive for work, and whenever she tried changing
the station, her male counterparts would change it back to the initial station. This case was filed
in 2004, and the verdict passed by the judge in 2006 was that they delegated the judgment to her
employer because the case was under the jurisdiction of her employer, not the court (Evans,
2018).
The first sexual harassment case happened in the united states in 1975 when Lois Jensen
and other women who worked in the iron mine got harassed sexually by men working in the
same iron mine. She filled a case when things were getting out of hand in 1984. It took several
years for the matter to be settled in 1998, and the women were compensated $3.5 million by the
company for the sexual harassment they had undergone (Clancy et al., 2020). Since this case,

CASE STUDY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT 4
many people have filed complaints about sexual harassment by their coworkers. Based on the
case study, it is not easy to tell whether the harassment constitutes a criminal offense or just a
tort law breach. It would be a criminal offense if the defendant physically harmed the
complainant or subjected the complainant to the same. Most sexual harassments break laws of
torts, and disciplinary actions are usually taken under the institution's management. Few cases
get to courts.
To investigate this occurrence following the law, the first question will be. Can the
plaintive prove that he or she is an employee of the institution she is working for? According to
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer is someone who is in an industry and fifteen or more
employees working for him or her. For each working day in twenty and above working weeks in
the calendar year. That is if someone is working for an institution with more than 15 employees
and the person is working for more than twenty weeks a year, then the person is an employee to
the institution (Hawkins, 2020). Other laws strictly state that an employee is someone employed
by the employer. If an institution of work is a private sector and the remote sector workers are
more than 50 employees, they should have a federal contract or subcontract. The employer must
file the EEO-1 report yearly. This will be done by the investigative unit to determine the case's
legibility before the judgment day.
A statute of limitations applies in several offenses, especially the ones that are in breach
of torts. This statute of limitations depends on the place of employment; for federal employees, it
is 45 days from the day of incidence. For others, it is 180 days but can be extended up to 300
days in other jurisdictions; for federal employees, the mater can be resolved internally, but if this
fails, the EEO issues or allows the person to file the complaint. For others like the private sector,
EEOC opens an investigation and notifies the employer within 10days. After the investigation,

CASE STUDY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT 5
the EEOC issues a letter of determination, then the process of reconciliation starts through the
agency. If reconciliation fails, the EEOC files a case suit to the federal court, though it mostly
issues sue. The complainant then has 90 days to file the lawsuit (Cole et al., 2020)
Disparate treatment and disparate action both account for discriminatory practices.
Desperate impacts are unintentional discrimination, while disparate treatment is intentional.
Under this case study, it is an abuse that has been going on for some time now, and she even
details Simon's activities to her boss. This makes the abuse intentional, and the plaintive can is
sure that the abuse was deliberate and a desperate treatment. It is up to Myma to prove that the
defendant has been harassing her sexually, tabling the evidence, that is usually actionable per se.
The plaintive has witnesses probably in the hotel who can testify against the defendant.
It is sufficient to establish that the plaintive presumptions meet the court's requirements
unless stated otherwise, the plaintive has a prima facie evidence against Simon, the defendant.
He has been sexually harassing her during work. This may have costs on the lady in question
because it prevented her from conducting her duties peacefully and making her ineffective. The
company can compensate disturbance at work just like the first case of Ms. Reeves. So long as
the plaintive can table evidence of sexual harassment, she has the court's upper hand. A Judge
must have adequate information when looking into this case, or else it may be difficult to tell the
verdict in this case. First of all, the judge will need to prove that the plaintive is an employee to
the hotel, following the investigation detailed tabled. Then the judge will have to see to it that the
defendant was doing the harassment. This burden of proof in a federal court lies with the
plaintive. After proving the discrimination, the judge will have to look into the degree of abuse
and the case verdict's effects before rendering the judgment. The institution she is working for
may have to compensate her following the fact that the management knew and took no action to

CASE STUDY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT 6
report or stop the abuse. The judge's verdict is likely to be that the defendant is guilty of the
charges, and he and the company should compensate the plaintive.

CASE STUDY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT 7

References

Abrams, L. (2019). Sex and Sexual Orientation Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Same, Similar, or Distinct? Bellarmine Law Society Review, 10(1).
Clancy, K. B., Cortina, L. M., & Kirkland, A. R. (2020). Opinion: Use science to stop sexual
harassment in higher education—proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Cole, C. M., Burrell, D. N., & Springs, D. (2020). Exploring Organizational Development
Intervention Around Sexual Harassment in Technical Firms. International Journal of
Hyperconnectivity and the Internet of Things (IJHIoT), 4(1), 29-42.
Evans, A. (2018). # MeToo: A Study on Sexual Assault as Reported in the New York
Times. Occam's Razor, 8(1), 3.
Hawkins, D. (2020). Statutory Interpretation Civil Rights Act of 1964. Wisconsin Law Journal.