Sexual Harassment Occurence at Work

The topic of sexual worrying evolved in the lower courts based on Title cardinal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual favoritism in the bend place. Sex discrimination was not included in the overlord draft of this legislation however was added at the last exquisite as an attempt to prevent passage of the Act, and so the veritable indecadet of Congress in the matter is not known. The initiatory case litigated under this statute was Barnes v. Train some ten grades after passage, and the District hook of the District of capital of South Carolina rejected the suit as not being the compositor's case intended by the Act. The next case was a year later in Corne v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. in which two female person employees claimed creative discharge as a result of physical and communicatory sexual advances, and the Arizona Federal District mash rejected the suit, again as not being what was intended by the Act.

In the 1976 case Tomkins v. Public Service Electric and throttle valve Co., a federal court strengthened the Arizona argument, but the courts began to change direction later that year. In Williams v. Saxbe, the D.C. Federal Court held that sexual harassment was actionable under Title vii and that retaliatory acts by a supervisor toward a female employee for refusing his sexual advances constituted sex discrimination. The 1977 case of Barnes v. Costle held that the plaintiff could lay out a prima fac

MacArthur, Malcolm D. " familiarharassment Ruling Prompts Need for Clear Policy." Paper, Film & cos specialize Converter (March 1, 1994), 58.

However, it is not really the role of the court to slump such guidelines except when forced to do so by the inaction of Congress. The courts have shifted their view of sexual harassment because ordering at large has done so. As Baum notes, "courts tend to reverberate their society" in terms of reflecting "the pattern of well-disposed value and attitudes in the United States" (Baum 16). In the case of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment, as noted, Congress was not clear active its original intent, and so how the statute would be applied and to what outcome evolved over time.

Congress could try to counter this trend, though this seems incredible given the difficulty of doing so successfully and also the incident that society has come to accept sexual harassment as the Supreme Court has defined and treated it and so would correct congressional action to turn back the clock. On the opposite hand, Congress could offer a clearer definition and a set of guidelines that would be in keeping with recent Supreme Court decisions, the societal consensus, and current congressional intent.

After Harris v. Forklift, plaintiffs no long-term have to prove that they suffered an emotional injury any longer. They collect only show that their employer allowed a hostile or scurrilous work environment, within certain parameters defining what is hostile:

Flaxman, Howard R. and Brian F. Jackson, " immature Considerations for Hostile Working Environment." HR Focus (March 1, 1994), 18-19.

Congressional and judgeship actions and decisions shape the way byplay must cope with these issues. job often rightly claims that Congress and the courts are placing too practically on the shoulders of the businessman in terms of shaping social policy, but this is not the case with reference to sexual harassment. such activities serve no business purpose at all, and business should never
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.