Sexual Harassment

[JOEBIALEK]

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html

For the first time in his 25 years of employment, a female employee has made a verbal allegation of sexual harassment against a male friend of mine. "John" was notified of this by his immediate supervisor via an email. The email did not indicate an incident or complaint but rather was framed in the context of "feedback" advising John to be carefull when it comes to dealing with female employees. It went on to say that comments, compliments, innuendos, flirting, wandering eyes, etc. can be misperceived and possibly jeapordize his job. Needless to say, John was absolutely astounded. He immediately approached his supervisor and demanded clarification. The supervisor indicated that a female employee had verbalized the allegation. He then clarified his position on the matter by stating that he has never witnessed any such behavior by John nor believes any incident occurred. What bothers John however, is why was the email sent in the first place? Does it constitute some form of written warning? The employee handbook states that standard operating procedure requires a verbal warning first and then written warning followed by a final written warning and then termination. Were John's civil rights violated?

The work environment today in the United States is becoming more and more polarized. Women are flagrantly disregarding company dress codes in order to flaunt there sexuality. It was interesting to discover how narrowly defined sexual harassment has become. A clause in the code mentions "visual harassment"; defined as any display that promotes the sexuality of what is depicted, or draws attention to the private parts of the body, even if there is partial clothing. Consequently, men are flagrantly disregarding verbal and visual inhibitions as they react to the sexual stimulus. The question that remains however, is which side constitutes criminality? Is it the sexual provocation or is it the sexual reaction? Do wandering male eyes encourage women to dress more provocatively or does female attire encourage wandering male eyes? Does a loose verbal atmosphere in the work place exacerbate the problem? Would clamping down constitute a violation of freedom of speech? What about the constant bombardment of sexual messages facilitated through various media? The 1960's ushered in the sexual revolution. Perhaps it is time for the counter revolution.

[Montgomery-Scott]

what, the male supremecy revolution?

[bombkangaroo]

no, the unisex burkhas revolution.

[witeshark]

Seems to me the point is that it has become too easy for girls in work to miss use the harassment concept. Which would put more pressure on guys to make sure they are careful to protect their job.

[Camarohusky]

Damn! And I was hopin' to ask this girl at work for a date this weekend...

[superthing]

Yes.. it most definitley is time...

[secondmessiah]

You are using the "blame the victim" philosophy. Saying "did you see how much clevage she was showing" is not an excuse for any crime.

No more whining about freedom of speech.
The first ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn't say you can't be fired for telling you're co-worker that she has a nice ass when she doesn't want you to. You're boss can make it so you are allowed to use the word "the" at all or he will fire you.

[JoS-1]

We should be able to smack girls asses at work. I mean we can do it to each other (guy and guy) why not allow them to be part of the team, but instead we excluded them. I say more ass and tittie grabbing.

[FUNKbrs]

At 7/23/04 11:43 AM, secondmessiah wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Doesn't this part technically illegalize the "separation of church and state" argument? It seems like it's saying you can't pass laws stopping religions from taking over the government, and in fact can't pass laws (Islam springs to mind) restricting religion in anyway.....

Hamas IS a religious movement, but there are laws against it.....

Unconstitutional, anyone?

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/23/04 11:43 AM, secondmessiah wrote: You are using the "blame the victim" philosophy. Saying "did you see how much clevage she was showing" is not an excuse for any crime.

Is it for flirting. If a girl walks into a room with three buttons undone, she shouldn't be suprised when everyone gawks at her.

[fli]

At 7/23/04 05:42 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 7/23/04 11:43 AM, secondmessiah wrote: You are using the "blame the victim" philosophy. Saying "did you see how much clevage she was showing" is not an excuse for any crime.

Is it for flirting. If a girl walks into a room with three buttons undone, she shouldn't be suprised when everyone gawks at her.

Perhaps... but it doesn't warrant unnecessary cat calling or touching. This is a dress code issue and so it would be between the flaunting woman and work place.

[CliffBar]

I just try to avoid most chicks when i'm really horny, but i've never come close to harassing a lady