Reference no: EM131315646

Read the information below then discuss the decision of the Supreme Court and its relation to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in 200 words

Current Issues in Employment Law

As employment law evolves to respond to the dynamic environment of HRM, legal issues arise as employees seek to clarify and assert their rights. Let's take a look at several current legal issues including sexual harassment, comparable worth, English only laws, sexual orientation discrimination, and current trends in state and local laws.

Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment is a serious issue for both men and women in both public- and private-sector organizations. Nearly 12,000 complaints are filed with the EEOC each year; 16 percent of these are filed by males.⁷⁴ The good news is that the total number of complaints filed with the EEOC has dropped 20 percent in the last ten years.⁷⁵Settlements in some of these cases incurred substantial litigation costs to the companies involved. At Mitsubishi, for example, the company paid out more than $34 million to 300 women for the rampant sexual harassment to which they were exposed.⁷⁶ But it's more than just jury awards. Sexual harassment results in millions lost in absenteeism, low productivity, recruiting problems, and turnover.⁷⁷

Sexual harassment can be regarded as any unwanted activity of a sexual nature that affects an individual's employment. It can occur between members of the opposite or of the same sex, between organization employees or employees and nonemployees. Much of the problem associated with sexual harassment is determining what constitutes this illegal behavior.⁷⁸ In 1993, the EEOC cited three situations in which sexual harassment can occur. These are instances where verbal or physical conduct toward an individual

Two types of sexual harassment have been established. The first, quid pro quo harassment, is when some type of sexual behavior is expected as a condition of employment. The second, hostile environment harassment, is when a working environment is offensive and unreasonably interferes with an employee's ability to work.

Just what constitutes such an environment? The Supreme Court recognized in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act could be used for hostile environment claims.⁷⁹ This case stemmed from a situation in which Ms. Vinson initially refused the sexual advances of her boss. However, out of fear of reprisal, she ultimately conceded. According to court records, it did not stop there. Vinson's boss continued to hassle Vinson, subjecting her to severe hostility, which affected her job.⁸⁰ In addition to supporting hostile environment claims, the Meritor case along with Faragher v. City of Boca Raton also identified employer liability: That is, in sexual harassment cases, an organization can be held liable for sexual harassment actions by its managers, employees, and even customers!⁸¹

Although the Meritor case has implications for organizations, how do organizational members determine if something is offensive? For instance, does sexually explicit language in the office create a hostile environment? How about off-color jokes? Pictures of undressed women? It depends on the people in the organization and the environment in which they work. The point here is that we all must be attuned to what makes fellow employees uncomfortable-and if we don't know, we should ask. Smart employers are in tune with the culture and sensitivities of all employees. DuPont's corporate culture and diversity programs, for example, are designed to eliminate sexual harassment through awareness and respect for all individuals.⁸² This means understanding one another and, most important, respecting others' rights. Similar programs exist at many companies including Quicken Loans, Verizon Wireless, and Walgreens.

If sexual harassment carries potential costs to the organization, what can a company do to protect itself (see Learning an HRM Skill, p. 88)?⁸³ The courts want to know two things: did the organization know about, or should it have known about the alleged behavior; and what did management do to stop it?⁸⁴ The judgments and awards against organizations today indicate an even greater need for management to educate all employees on sexual harassment matters and have mechanisms available to monitor employees. Victims no longer have to prove that their psychological well-being is seriously affected. The Supreme Court ruled in 1993 in the case of Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., that victims need not suffer substantial mental distress to merit a jury award. In June 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment may have occurred even if the employee had not experienced any "negative" job repercussions. In this case, Kimberly Ellerth, a marketing assistant at Burlington Industries, filed harassment charges against her boss because he "touched her, suggested she wear shorter skirts, and told her during a business trip that he could make her job 'very hard or very easy.'" When Ellerth refused, the harasser never "punished" her. In fact, Kimberly even received a promotion during the time the harassment was ongoing. The Supreme Court's decision in this case indicates that "harassment is defined by the ugly behavior of the manager, not by what happened to the worker subsequently.

Remember that the rights of the alleged harasser must be considered too. This means that no action should be taken against someone until a thorough investigation has been conducted. The results of the investigation should be reviewed by an independent and objective individual before any action against the alleged harasser is taken. Even then, the harasser should have an opportunity to respond to the allegation and participate in a disciplinary hearing if desired. Additionally, an avenue for appeal should also exist for the alleged harasser, heard by someone in a higher level of management who is not associated with the case.