Gender Issues in the Law Research Assignemnt Paper (Reaction Paper Sample)
Please response to the following; Answer the critic who proclaims: "This has gone too far! After all, no one was hurt. There's no harm in asking, right? Only a prude would advocate the removal of all sexual give and take from the workplace. Hey, loosen up!" The included case readings on sexual harassment and hostile work environment will be relevant here.source..
It is absolutely insensitive to have a mindset that allows permissibility of sexual harassment, however subtle, at the workplace. There is a reason as to why an organization will take in both men and women as part of its workforce, and not just one gender. Every person has got his or her own boundaries, just in a similar way that every individual has got different kinds of temperament. Having some level of respect for these boundaries or reservations is important for any professional interaction, which can even extend outside the workplace. It needs to be recalled that none of the genders is impervious to harassment, not everyone enjoys sexual advances of anything sexist. By good luck, the law offers valuable lessons through examples, of just how serious sexual harassment should be taken, at the workplace.
The law prohibits anyone, especially an employer, to judge the merit and career success of its employee based on sexual gratification. According to [HN1] Section 703(a) (1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.S. Â§ 2000e-2(a) (1), it is not illegal but also unethical for an employer to exhibit sexual discrimination against an employee. This is especially the case if the terms and conditions of employment didnâ€™t warrant any of the discrimination meted. It is even worse, if the organization in charge doesnâ€™t take any action against its senior employees engaging in the malpractice. As in the case of TOMKINS, ADRIENNE E, v. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & others (United States Court of Appeal, 1977). Basing on the Labor and Employment law, â€˜An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate authority over the employee.â€™
It is worth noting, the argument that â€˜no one was hurt,â€™ is very careless and to a huge extent, sexist in itself. Sexual harassment is in most cases done very silently and whereas the perpetrator will see it as a very simple, harmless act, the victim experiences the most trauma. The problem is always on the victim, not the perpetrator. When looking at Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the law actually advices against any form of workplace discrimination or harassment. This thereby prevents an employer from taking advantage of authority to bias against race, age, or gender. Sexual harassment perfectly fits this illegal billing, since it encompasses virtually everything that this legal provision is up against.
There is however a fine line that one needs to tread, to avoid falling into the trap of either the victim of perpetrator of sexual harassment. The voice of the critic, in some way, takes advantage of the legal deficiencies and its exceptions. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C.S. Â§ 2000e et seq doesnâ€™t place a cover ban on all the different ways that men and women relate at the workplace. It doesnâ€™t therefore cater for any â€˜isolated or offhand incidents.â€™ As such, discriminatory incidents in terms of terms and conditions of employment are entirely down to the severity of the acts. Critics will therefore use this as a loophole to advance their unethical idea.