Employment Discrimination
In today’s business world, the rules and regulations of business practices are closely regulated making it especially important for managers to be aware of laws that could potentially lead to lawsuits if broken. It is especially imperative for Human Resource managers be aware of potential discrimination cases that could be occurring in their workplace. Discrimination can be claimed in one of three ways. These include: disparate treatment, disparate impact, or harassment. Disparate impact is “when one individual is treated less favorably than another because of color race, religion, sex, or national origin.” Disparate impact is “when the employer’s facially neutral policy or practice has a discriminatory effect on employees who belong to a protected class.” The last discrimination type, which will be the focus of this paper is sexual harassment. Sexual harassment occurs when “unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, which explicitly or implicitly makes submission a term or condition of employment or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment” (Kubasek, Brennan, & Brown, 2015).
Sexual harassment has been present in the workplace from the beginning, but many times it goes unreported. This is due to the lack of understanding of what exactly defines sexual harassment and the possible fear of losing their job for reporting it, as well as, being passed over for a future raise or promotion, or the possibility of not being believed when reporting the harassment. Surveys have shown that at least ¼ of women in the workplace have experienced some type of sexual harassment throughout their career and of this number 70-90% of these victims who have experienced this do not make a formal complaint (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, 2016). This makes it imperative for Human Resource managers to lay out a very well-defined sexual harassment policy that is clear, concise, and openly available for employees to be aware of. It is also important to have all employees be required to take sexual harassment training so they can be fully aware of what constitutes as sexual harassment. Managers must also closely monitor any possible situation that could bring forth such claims. If any claims still do occur, the employees should feel comfortable to come forward with a complaint and if they do come forward, all claims should be taken seriously and be thoroughly investigated (Preventing Sexual Harassment). Even with strictest of policies in place to avoid harassment claims, many organization still face the risk of having a claim made.
There are two different ways to claim or define sexual harassment. The first is “when tangible aspects of the harassed employee’s job are involved” (Greenlaw, 19929). This means that the employee was denied a job benefits, such as a promotion or salary increase, since the employee refused the sexual favors to their supervisor. The second type of sexual harassment is called hostile environment harassment. This occurs when the employee claims that a supervisor has created an abusive work environment. There are five steps to prove sexual discrimination, these steps include, “(1) the employee belongs to a protected group; (2) the employee was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) the harassment complained of was based upon sex; (4) the employee was harassed concerning tangible job benefits, which altered the conditions of employment and created an abusive working environment; and (5) the employer was liable for the harassment” (Greenlaw, 1992).
Let’s take for example “Anna’s immediate supervisor, Michael, repeatedly required that she have “closed door” meetings with him. Closed-door meetings violate company policy. Other employees were aware of these closed-door meetings and, as a result, rumors began to spread that Anna and Michael were having an office romance. In fact, in these closed-door meetings Michael tried to convince Anna to lend him money, a practice that also violates company policy. Anna repeatedly denied the request and Michael stopped asking. However, the rumors continued and affected Anna deeply. She was treated like an outcast by her co-workers. Anna asked Michael to clear up the rumors, but he found them amusing. Anna had two evaluations where she scored low points for “integrity” and “interpersonal relations” as a consequence of the rumors. She was passed over for two promotions for which she applied where her skills and experience were superior to the employees who were promoted. She filed an action against her employer on the ground that her supervisor had created a hostile work environment because he refused to stop the rumors.”
The facts of this case are that Anna’s supervisor required her to have “closed door meetings with him despite it violating company policy. Her supervisor not only violated company policy in this way, he also violated company policy through requesting money from Anna. Despite the fact he did stop requesting money once he was denied, he still caused her harm through the rumors that arose from these “closed door” meetings. Her supervisor then refused to stop the rumors, instead claimed them as humorous and let them continue. This caused Anna to be an outcast among her co-workers and to be passed on two separate occasions for a promotion. This created a hostile work environment for Anna where she was denied tangible aspects of her job, i.e. the two promotions. Her employer was directly liable for this, because he required her to have “closed door” meetings with him and then refused to take the steps to end the false rumors that were created (Greenlaw, 1992). Thus, creating a viable hostile work environment in the lines of sexual harassment case to claim against her employer.
These pretenses allow Anna to claim a hostile work environment through sexual harassment. Hostile work environment occurs when some type of sexual harassment makes your work environment to be intimidating, offensive, or hostile. This is how Anna’s work environment became after her direct supervisor’s action. She may have felt pressure to comply to the meetings and that she had no other option. Despite feeling this way, her peers saw it as an office romance which made her become an outcast. Not only did she get denied the opportunity for two different promotions, she also received a lower evaluation due to the rumors that arose from the meetings.
There are no exact circumstances that create or define a hostile environment, meaning there is no black and white way to define exactly what would stand up in court for a sexual discrimination case. But a hostile work can be determined through a “continuing pattern of behavior that differentiates a particular employee or group of employees because of sex constitutes unequal condition of employment in violation of Title VII” (Cohen, 1987). Anna was asked to have multiple “closed door” meetings with her supervisor. It was a continuing pattern that she felt she had to comply to. Employers are legally and automatically responsible for sexual harassment when the harassment is the result of a tangible negative employment action. When a plaintiff can prove that their employer is liable for the harassment, they then are entitled to back pay, monetary compensation, and sometimes even punitive damages. Anna can prove that her employer is responsible through the fact she was required to have multiple closed door meeting with her supervisor which ultimately led to the loss of a promotion and a lower evaluation (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, 2016).
An example of this type of gender-based harassment that led to a hostile work environment is Meritor Saving Bank v. Vinson. The claim arose when Mechelle Vinson was dismissed from her job at Meritor Savings Bank. She claimed she had been subject to sexual harassment through her time with the company which led to a hostile work environment for her. In 1974, Vinson was hired with the company and was eventually promoted to assistant branch manager on her own record. Vinson took a sick leave of absence indefinitely and was then in turn fired for excessive use of the leave. Vinson then claimed that her direct supervisor, Sidney Taylor, began to request sexual affairs from her in May of 1975. In 1978, Vinson sued both Taylor and the bank, she claimed she had to endure sexual harassment throughout her four years at the bank. The district court originally found that Vinson did not have a winning case because the sexual relationship was voluntary and did not affect Vinson’s employment at the band and that because the alleged sexual harassment was never made known to the bank, therefore it could not be held responsible. This ruling was later overturned in the court of appeals. The final ruling stated that Vinson did in fact have claim under Title VII because of the hostile environment it created. It was then decided that “an employer is absolutely liable for sexual harassment practiced by supervisory personnel, whether or not the employer knew or have known about the misconduct” (Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson – Case Background).
Because the employer is liable for sexual harassment cases when a hostile environment is created, despite whether or not the employer knew about the misconduct, Anna could bring her case to the courts. Anna work environment became hostile due to the actions of her supervisor. Under the Title VII in Meritor Savings Bank V. Vison proves that the employer will be held reliable for creating a hostile work environment through gender-based discrimination, thus proving that Anna should prevail if she were to bring forth a case against her employer.