Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Essay -- Sex Discrimination

TABLE OF CONTENTS TYPES OF disparity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS DISCRIMINATION . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .1Laws That Govern cozy Harassment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2How It Affects The Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4TYPES OF SEX DISCRIMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Basic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 pile Pro Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Hostile Work Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6THE HIGH be OF LITIGATION FOR EMPLOYERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7TYPES OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..8 EMPLOYER?S RESPONSIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11VII. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13CASES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14I. TYPES OF DISCRIMINATION There are many forms of discrimination, especially in the workplace. Before we bring down into the different types of discrimination, we need to define the word discriminate which is, to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs, rather than according to actual merit. Taken from the Unabridged reading of the Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Like many people I was under the belief that to discriminate simply meant that y... ...ts Acts of 1964 (Internet) http//www.eeoc.gov/laws/vii.htmlWhitehead, Roy Jr. Spikes, Pam Yelvington, Brenda. Sexual Harassment In The Office. CPA Journal. Vol. 66 No. 2 pp.42-45, February 1996. take note All periodicals were found through the Nexis/Lexis system in the Library.CASES CITEDElli son v. Brady, (1991) 924 F.2d 842Equal meshing Opportunity Commission v. Domino?s Pizza, Inc., 909 F.Supp. 1529 (M.D.Fla. 1995)Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 367 (1993)Matthews v. Superior Court (Regents of University of California), (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 598.Mogilefski v. Superior Court (Silver Pictures), (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1409.Neal v. Director, District of Columbia Department of Corrections, U.S.Dist. LEXIS,11461, 11469, 11515 (D.D.C. 1995) logical argument Cases cited were researched through the law library.