Sexually Harassing Conversation in Order

Sexually Harassing Conversation

In order to fully discuss the issue of sexually harassing conversation, one must first fully define what is meant by sexual harassment. It is noted in one article that the term harassment was coined based on an old French term that meant one was being pursued by dogs (Griffin, 2000). To be more precise, harassment is not that which occurs between a human and a dog, but rather something that occurs between coworkers, in the educational setting on else in any setting in which the attention and conversation is unwanted and in some way reduces that status of the one who is being harassed. The criminal definition of harassment can change from state to state, but essentially when the attention is repeated and unwanted, is repeated and purposefully annoying to the recipient, then this can be defined as harassing conversation.

When harassment occurs it is often difficult to ascertain the intent of the harasser, and in this way the harasser can claim that he or she never meant to abuse or annoy the person who is being harassed. Instead, this kind of behavior is often shrugged off as some kind of a joke, and the victim is sometimes painted as being too sensitive or lacking in a sense of humor. When the harassment takes the form of physical contact, it is easier to prove a case of harassment. It is slightly more difficult when one speaks of annoying communication.

Luckily, when harassment is reported within the workplace, it is not required to stand up to the criminal standard, and intent of the person doing the harassment does not have to be considered. Instead, the "reasonable person" rule holds, in which if the conversation contains content or implication that the reasonable person may find too intimate or discomfiting in nature, then the conditions of sexual harassment may apply. It should also be noted that sexually harassing conversations are not solely limited to ones desire to engage in intimate activity with another. A hostile environment is recognized in that straight men may harass other straight men regarding issues such as sexual prowess or proclivity, gay men or lesbians sometimes experience harassment from coworkers due to sexual orientation. It should be noted that even though sexual orientation is not covered under civil rights law, it is still illegal to harass someone because of sexual orientation.

The restaurant industry in particular has seen its share of sexual harassment claims. It has been estimated that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent by the foodservice industry in one year alone on sexual harassment claims. The State of California reported that there are anywhere from 1,163 and 1,275 reported cases of sexual harassment for restaurant employees alone (Allen, et.al, 2005). Pizza of Florida, a company who does business throughout the state under the name ABC Pizza was required to pay $225,000 for two sisters who had been subjected to the unwanted conversation of an adult manager. His conversation. The lawsuit was brought against the company by the EEOC and was particularly heinous since the victims were 16 and 17 years old at the time and placed with the company on a high school on-the-job training program. It was not noted whether the company instituted any training program or review of potentially hostile working environments within other stores. It would appear that this would be an especially important if this company hosts' minor in their stores as part of a work training program. While the young women received monetary compensation for their discomfort, it was also not noted whether the manager was terminated.

The Mitsubishi motor company was also the defendant in a sexual harassment suit brought by one of the workers in their automotive assembly plant in Central Illinois. During her two years working at the plant, Sandra Rushing worked on the production line, and during those years was subjected to sexual harassment in the form of conversation, rude gestures, touching. Interestingly, Bracket was the only woman to complain about the sexually intimidating atmosphere at the plant. However, other women who denied sexual harassment, did report, when questioned, that it was not at all unusual for them to hear the word "*****" applied to them in the workplace, or to see sexually explicit graffiti placed on the bumpers of cars that moved down the assembly line to their workplace. Some of the other women who worked in the plant felt it was only a joke, but 30 women pleaded s a strong enough case against the company that a sexual harassment case was brought against Mitsubishi in 1994. The women also related that they felt they might be in an environment of retaliation. After a 15-month investigation by the EEOC in Illinois, a class action lawsuit was filed against the company. Some women (approximately 20% of the employees at this plant are women) demonstrated a visceral response to the lawsuit, stating that the 30 women behind the suit were lying, although these women did admit that some of the harassment activities had taken place and that some of the prime offenders had been let go. Many of these women felt that the situation should be left at that. Other women requested that the EEOC change to an individual rather than a class action suit. It has been suggested that many of the women felt pressured to support the company that had brought high wages to the small town they lived in. Mitsubishi started sexual harassment abatement education in response to the suit. Mitsubishi expressed an interest in settling the issue out of court, and eventually the claim was settled in 1998 in which Mitsubishi agreed to pay $34 million in compensation to the women employed at the Illinois plant.

The Mitsubishi motor company case is interesting since it is unclear whether the issue of sexual harassment is significant within the Japanese culture, although the Japanese office directed the settlement of the suit. In this suit, it appeared that some personnel were willing to put up with harassment for fear of losing their jobs, and some of the women professed not to believe that the harassment was a problem, describing their relationships as "tight" and "family like." Again, this brings us to the issue of "what a reasonable man or woman would believe is harassment."

One would look to case law in a situation like this, another case with a car company in that one Mary Carr, the first and only female tinsmith employed by General Motors Gas Turbine Division brought suit against co-workers for the use of epithets such as "whore" in referring to her. Ms. Carr complained to supervisors on two occasions, both of which were ignored and her court claim lost since the court indicated she had "invited" the unwelcome behavior since it was alleged that she had brought such behavior upon her by frequent absences and her own use of vulgar language in the workplace (Carr v Allison, 1994) The suit was eventually overturned on appeal, since the higher court felt that by a "reasonable person" the idea of welcome harassment was a fallacy.

The "big box" home improvement stores have also been noted in several sexual harassment cases. In a case from Washington State, a suit was made that female workers at Home Depot who reported offensive and sexually explicit comments to employers were ignored. Women were allegedly made to experience aggressive verbal and physical harassment to include repeated reference and discussion from male employees about sexual positions, penises and penis size, the solicitation of sexual acts for money and retaliation. When these women reported their concerns regarding this harassment to the management reportedly told them that it was a "he said, she said" situation and that more evidence was required. Even when a female worker turned in a CD/DVD that contained graphic pornographic images, which had been given to her by a male co-worker, she was still told by the human resources department she did not have sufficient evidence. A co-worker who reported she had witnessed the action against the plaintiff was subsequently fired, the reason being reported as poor performance although a review of her employee record showed that she had above average employee reviews. This is only one in a series of suits brought against Home Depot. To date, the company had instituted what they call a "no tolerance" policy towards sexual harassment and includes educational seminars for all new employees.

Sexual harassment can be seen at all stages of the corporate ladder. Fortune magazine estimated that the average Fortune 500 Company spends $6.7 million per year in costs (direct and indirect) related to sexual harassment issues. NuTech Sciences, Inc. A up and coming company currently spearheading the efforts to build one of the largest supercomputers recently settled a sexual harassment suit involving Dr. Michael Keehan, it's CEO. The suit cost the company $470,000. The incident leading to this settlement involved Keehan and a woman who had been employed as his executive assistant. Tammi Thomas reported that she began her employment for NuTec in 1997, and was offered a promotion if she would relocate from Huston to Atlanta. Keehan invited the plaintiff and another employee to lunch one month after her transfer. Thomas reported that Keehan became very intoxicated at lunch and began to make comments about Thomas' appearance. He specifically asked Thomas why she was not wearing a short skirt, stating, "I gave you a clothing allowance and I expect to see some short skirts" He reportedly also suggested that Thomas remove her suit coat so he could observe her figure more closely.

As previously noted, sexually harassing conversations are not limited only to females. In the case EEOC vs. Carmike Cinemas, it was charged that there was a sexually hostile work environment created for male teenaged employees who worked at the Raleigh theatre. In this case, the Concessions manager was a 29-year-old male who had served two years in prison for indecent liberties with a minor. In the 9 months he was employed by the Carmike theatres corporation, he supervised seven males who in turn charged the 29-year-old with offensive verbal contact. Although the boys had complained to the Office Manager and the General Manager of the theater but both failed to make any intervention. While the Concession Manager was eventually fired for other reasons, it was only after the police arrested him for failure to register as a sex offender. Ultimately, Carmike Cinemas had to pay $765,000 to the defendants. In addition, the theaters were required to revise standing sexual harassment policies, post an 11 x 17-inch poster summarizing the policy, provide a copy of the policy to all employees. In addition the company will have to provide training related to sexual harassment reporting procedures to all new hires within a certain period of employment and had plan to train all managers and employees annually on the same.