Case of Hidden Harassment

The Case of Hidden Harassment

The protagonist in this case, Jerry Tarkwell, must decide what to do regarding Jill McNair’s refusal to report incidents of sexual harassment inflicted upon her by a male senior colleague. Tarkwell faces quite a problem. If he does not mandate that McNair report the harassment, he may leave the company open to a lawsuit for failing to create a harassment-free workplace. He may also leave himself open to discipline or termination for failing to report the incident, as dictated by company policy. If, however, he reports McNair’s harassment, or forces McNair to do so, then he jeopardizes McNair’s career inside and potentially outside of the company.

The above is the explicit problem facing Tarkwell. What is implicit in this situation is that the company has failed to create a workplace where employees are educated about sexual harassment and are aware of the consequences for such behavior. The company has also failed to create an environment where victims of harassment feel safe from retaliation or ostracism when they do report such incidents.

Team One takes the position that Tarkwell should protect McNair’s privacy and seek an alternative solution to the explicit problem than to report her name to the EEO, which would result in an investigation.

Mikiko Taga points out that a company policy regarding sexual harassment is ostensibly in place to “help employees deal with harassment.” The 1986 Supreme Court ruling on Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson clarified that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits creating a hostile environment for someone because of her gender, and called such behavior sexual harassment. Both this law and the company policy are clearly created to protect the individual. Tarkwell has seen firsthand that his subordinate feels she will suffer retaliation and ostracism if she were to report the harassment. This should tell Tarkwell that the company’s harassment policy has not been properly...