Sexual Harassment Questions
HR593
Based on the scenario, Brittany Murphy does have a legal viable claim under Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment and Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment. Quid pro quo sexual harassment is sexual harassment in which the harasser requests sexual from the harassee in exchange for workplace benefits (Bennett-Alexander, D. 2013. Pg. 403). Brittany’s supervisor never did anything about the other employee Robert who was harassing her and asked her for sexual favors on a business trip because of what Robert told him and promised to promote her, when she declined she was demoted. Hostile environment sexual harassment is sexual harassment in which the harasser creates an abusive, offensive, or intimidating environment for the harassee (Bennett-Alexander, D. 2013. Pg. 403). In order for Brittany’s claim of sexual harassment to be brought to light she has to have proof and understand what is required for a hostile environment sexual harassment claim.
First, she claimed the harassment was unwelcome because she stated that she laughed at the moment when he made the comment about her photo but then went into the bathroom and threw up because the comment made her sick. The next time he made a similar comment she told him to stop because it made her very uncomfortable. Second, the harassment was based on gender because Robert Singer would never harass a male employee the way he did Brittany. Third, the harassment was severe enough to create an abusive work environment because Robert stood in Brittany’s work area and stared at her photos, made inappropriate comments to her in regards to her picture, and even took something of value that belonged to her without her permission and duplicated it and had it on his work computer altered. Last, the employer, Dwayne Miller, had actual knowledge of Robert’s actions because of a past situation and took no action when he was originally supposed to. Based on all of the above the claim would rule in...