Misplaced Affections: Discharge of Sexual Harassment
The harassment Peter Lewistons created was that of a Hostile
Environment. The EEOCs definition of Hostile Environment is when unwelcomed sexual conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonable interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (Bohlander & Snell, 2010, p.117) Lewistons conduct included letters, notes and invitations. All of which were rejected by Mrs. Beverly Gilbury. The matter became more serious as he became so persistent. Mrs. Gilbury made it clear she was married and would like to keep their relationship strictly friendly. However, it is very clear that Peter Lewiston was not understanding or choses to ignore her request of being just friends. He kept harassing Mrs. Gilbury by sending her notes, flowers, cards and letters. Peter Lewistons action of appearing when Mrs. Gilbury went to her car made the situation extremely intimidating for her, not only by following her but also by touching her. Whether the action was unintentional or not. The situation became extremely uncomfortable for the victim, she was then forced to bring up the issue. Lewistons motives should definitely be considered when deciding sexual harassment for various reasons. He was told a number of times that the relationship they had was strictly friendship. It should have stopped there. However, he continued to harass Mrs. Gilbury and would not give up regardless of the previous outcomes of his invitations and gestures. His intent was clear, and regardless of the number of failed attempts he was to
keep trying until we succeeded. Most importantly, it should have never
reached to point to him touching her, whether it was by accident or whether he was only intending to console her. She was already frightened by his previous actions and was definitely going to be on guard for anything else that happened between her and Peter Lewiston. Peter Lewistons motives were clear as he repeatedly asked Mrs. Gilbury to lunch and would continue to send her notes and messages. Peter Lewiston knew his conduct was unlawful and most importantly not accepted by the victim and yet he did nothing to take correction action or remedy it. Due to the Peter Lewistons persistence, I would conclude that in fact his actions were sexual harassment. The simple fact that he continued to pursue Mrs. Gilbury is enough to conclude that this is in fact hostile environment harassment and should be addressed immediately. Although it did no help Mrs. Gilburys case when she did not appear for the hearing the employers should have taken action on their own. Because Lewiston continued after he was told no, he is guilty of sexual harassment. The disciplinary action that I would have taken in this case would have been firing Lewiston as he constantly and continually created a hostile environment even after he was told she was married and would remain friends. If he would have stopped immediately after being informed that it was inappropriate and wouldnt have continued different measures couldve been taken such as a corrective action or maybe even suspension for a short period of time. However, due to his consistency in this matter and the hostile
environment he has created for a fellow employee the disciplinary action I
would choose is discharging him.
References Bohlander, G., & Snell, S. (2010). Managing Human Resources. Mason: Cengage Learning.