Project Assignment Human Resources

Project Assignment

Leidys Barrueta

MAN4301

Project Assignment

1. Evaluate the conduct of Peter Lewiston against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment.

The EEOC defines sexual harassment to include not only overt acts of sexual misconduct but also employee actions that have the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. The actions of Peter Lewiston fall under the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment because those actions are viewed as offensive by Beverly Gilbury. Peter conduct clearly spells sexual harassment to the definition of the EEOC, more specifically the second type of sexual harassment which created a hostile environment for Beverly and is defined as unwelcome sexual conduct; this conduct has a purpose or effect of interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. For example, Peter sent flowers to Beverly, ask to lunch, and sent cards and notes, all of this were unwelcome to her and she communicated it to him. Peter also harassed her in a physical form when she went to her car and he suddenly appeared, in addition attempted to physically touch Beverly, and with this actions he created an extreme hostile environment for Beverly Gilbury.

2. Should the intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities? Explain.

No the intent or motive behind Lewiston conduct should not be considered when deciding on sexual harassment activities since sexual harassment activities. Lewiston was paying her more attention and that his behavior was out of the ordinary and sometimes weird. He began spending more time in her classroom talking with the children and with her. At the time she didn’t say anything to Lewiston because didn’t want to hurt his feelings since he is a nice, lonely, older man. Overly friendly Gilbury failed to appear at the hearing and the injunction was set aside. Additionally, on June 11 she had...