Sexual harassment in working place Research Paper

Sexual harassment in working place - Research Paper eventBehavior of a perpetrator is still unwelcome even if it is intended in good spirit. Regardless of the expression of the perpetrator, it is the feeling of the victim about the behavior that becomes relevant. The victim does non pay to express her/his displeasure to the perpetrator. It is sufficient if the victim does not reciprocate by returning the behavior, not laughing at the jokes or show resentment, turn away or begin avoiding the offender. It is the body language of the victim that matters. Even if there is no expression, behavior is unwelcome to satisfy the test. Thus, the A part is entirely subjective on the part of the complainant. Though the complainant may appear to be very sensitive, one should not substitute ones judgment for the victims judgment. It should be only examined whether the victim genuinely felt the perpetrators behavior as unwelcome. The complainant might earn encountered similar behavior from s eparates but singled out a particular person s behavior as unacceptable or unwelcome. In legal sense, it is sure perfect to disapprove of certain conduct of certain people. A woman s complaint can be valid if she finds a new cusss dirty joke offensive though she might have told the same joke to another colleague she knows for a long time. In hatful pro quo complaints, the complainant might have made the behavior welcome and later claim that such relationship was not resisted in order not to lose her/his job. Employers must take care to keep a confidential note of the time and date and admissions of the two opposite sexes relationship with each other so that it can be handy if either party turns hostile later. The management is liable for its supervisors familiar harassment of a surmount even if the management has condoned the supervisors sexual harassment and has a written policy to that effect. In California, an employer can avoid liability if the complainant could have avoide d such situations without undue risk, expense or humiliation. Under federal law, employers may claim affirmative defense in case of supervisors engaging in sexual harassment without favoring the victim. It is an absolute defense available to employers under federal law but there should be available the elements of avoidable consequence doctrine. They are 1) the employer has already taken steps to prevent and correct sexual harassment at workplace. 2) the employee without reason failed to make use of the preventive and corrective measures. 3) The measures would have prevented the harm had the complainant made reasonable use of them (Whittenbury). USA Title VII of the well-mannered Rights Act 1964 prohibits sexual discrimination that includes sexual harassment among other forms of discrimination found on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy and national origin at workplace or work-related matters. All private establishments, state and local governments and educational institutions employing fifteen or more(prenominal) individuals for twenty or more weeks per year come under the purview of this Act. The others include private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, joint labor-management committees, U.S. companies outside the U.S. employing U.S. citizens (Bell). Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law. In California, there is a state level act namely Fair Employment and Housing Act that in the beginning prohibits sexual harassmen