tes Supreme Court ruled in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Incorporated (1998) that the factors that establish that employment-related sexual harassment exists is (a) sexual content in some form and (b) discrimination in the workplace, as opposed to (c) the biological sex of either abuser or abused. Thus, one can conclude that the male employees in the workplace described in the question scenario are being subjected to sexual harassment.
This question concerns (a) the potential creation of a hostile work environment within the context of sexual harassment wherein the offending party is a customer of the business in question, as opposed to being a member of the employing organization, and (b) the liability of the responsible company manager in relation to his response to a complaint from a female employee concerning a customerÆs ongoing behavior towards her. Two issues are of the greatest relevance. First, do the acts described in the scenario constitute sexual harassment to the point that a hostile environment exists? Second, was the response of the company manager to the complaint of the female employee appropriate and sufficient to protect the manager from a determination of sexual harassment liability?
There is no doubt that the actions of Simon created a hostile workplace for Myrna within the context of sexual harassment. The United States Supreme Court created a two part test to be used by employers in defending themselves against a sexual harassment lawsuit. First, an employer must demonstrate that he or she took reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexual harassment behavior within their workplace. Stuart did neither of these things; therefore, the second part of the Supreme CourtÆs test is not applicable in this case. Thus, the conclusion is that StuartÆs half-hearted and ineffective action left him open to a finding by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of sexual harassment liability. For...