Identification of Issues
Claims by Kia
Kia claims that when John Walker was hired, he started commenting about Kia’s body. John could also, at times, behave inappropriately when around Kia. John would breathe heavily when Kia was around. During the annual review of 2019, John promised Kia a pay rise only if Kia agreed to go to a local motel with John. At this point, Kia would not take it anymore and told John off. After this, John no longer gave sexual comments about Kia and Kia but received a pay rise from the other bakers. However, the promotion of Elizabeth Smith by John did not go well with Kia, who complained to the management and was laid off on economic issues. There are rumors that Elizabeth and John were sexually engaged. According to Kia, the promotion of Elizabeth was not on merit. John, who promoted Elizabeth, has previously tried to lure Kia into a sexual relationship which offended Kia, and he confronted John on the issue.
Moreover, John had sought a sexual favor from Kia so that she could be promoted. For this reason, the speculation that John and Elizabeth were engaged sexually can be true. This means that John could have used his position to secure a promotion for Elizabeth in exchange for a sexual favor. Promotion of the basis of sexual engagement is a disadvantage for other employees like Kia. Promotion should have been competitive and based on merit. John should be taken to task for explaining the criteria he used to decide that Elizabeth is the one to be promoted and not any other employee like Kia.
Discrimination Faced by Kia
The form of discrimination faced by Kia at the workplace is sexual discrimination. Sexual harassment can be defined as unwelcome and unwanted sexual advances at the workplace, including but not limited to the use of pictures, jokes, written notes or touch. According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sexual harassment is illegal. As established by Zawada (2018) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows victims of sexual harassment to sue for damages as established in Title VII amendment of the act. Kia’s type of sexual harassment at the workplace is the Quid Pro Quo. According to Stockdale et al .(2020) the Quid Pro Quo form of harassment occurs when an individual in a position of power uses their influence to coerce for sexual favors in return for benefits such as promotion (Minarsky v. Susquehanna County). In this case, John used his position to convince Kia to grant him sexual behavior in exchange for a pay rise. However, Kia declined, and she spoke openly to John about him harassing her. However, there are speculations that Elizabeth was not promoted based on merit. This forced Kia to complain, but instead, she was dismissed based on economic issues. The events that followed Kia indicate that there was an attempt to protect John from his actions. The complaints made by Kia were not critically analyzed, and no feedback was availed after Kia raised concerns.
Recommendation Course of Action for George Fairways and Why
George Fairways should take immediate action to protect other employees from the actions of John. George Fairways should grant Kia a hearing, and a thorough investigation should be conducted of the complaint by Kia. A full investigation should be conducted to ensure that the suspect is held accountable and that the victim receives justice (Stockdale et al/ 2020). The harassment investigation should consider comprehensive interviews of the alleged harasser, the victim and any witnesses as revealed in Minarsky v. Susquehanna County[1]. The interviewed individuals should be informed that the information provided is confidential and will only be available to those who legitimately need the information. All the people involved in the investigation should be able to keep the information confidential. However, the involved parties should understand that total confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore, the investigators should work on ensuring no confrontation between the alleged harasser and the accuser. Also, the investigation participants should be assured that no information they provide will be retaliated against them for their position and participation in the matter (Zawada, 2018). The investigation outcomes should lead to good faith and reasonable conclusions about the complaint raised by Kia. Coming to good faith and a reasonable conclusion can be challenging for the company. It is expected that the accused and the accuser will tell different stories during the investigation based on Swyear v. Fare Foods Corp[2]. The contradictory stories from the two parties may make it difficult to determine whether Kia was sexually harassed at the workplace. George Fairways will thus be required to conduct the investigations reasonably, come to rational conclusions and act in good faith.
After the completion of the investigation, the involved parties should be informed of the outcomes. The company should take time, either in written form or in contact, to explain the outcomes of the investigations and outline steps to ensure workers are protected against harassment at the workplace. Appropriate remedial actions should be considered to protect the victim’s interests as expounded in Minarsky v. Susquehanna County[3]. Furthermore, George Fairways should enforce its anti-harassment policy. Taking this course of action will ensure that justice is served. Also, the employees will have faith in the organization, and it will be ascertained that they are working in a secure space (Stockdale et al. 2020) . Also, conducting a thorough investigation will ensure that sexual harassment in the organization is discouraged. Furthermore, this will protect the organization’s image and prevent unnecessary lawsuits that the organization may face for not taking proper measures to protect the workers from harassment.
Steps to be taken by George Fairways
Several steps must be considered if Kia lays a formal complaint with EEOC. Before considering the steps to be taken, it is important to note that the EEOC investigator will look into the information submitted and use it to make recommendations to decide whether Kia experienced sexual harassment at the workplace. Based on the holding detailed in Swyear v. Fare Foods Corp[4], a formal complaint with EEOC considers six stages:
(a) pre-complaint stage
(b) formal complaint stage
(c) mixed cases complaints
(d) class complaints
(e) appeal stage
(f) judicial stage
The stages occur chronologically, indicating that one stage must happen for the other to occur. In the pre-complaint stage, Kia will be informed of how the complaint process works. In this stage, the victim will be advised of her rights and responsibilities throughout the process a sit was held in Minarsky v. Susquehanna County[5]. In the formal complaint stage, Kia will enter into a formal compliance stage signed by Kia’s attorney and Kia herself. In the mixed case complaints, the company will decide on whether to keep the complaint as a mixed case appeal or a mixed case complaint. In the class complaints stage, the EEOC AJ will determine whether to dismiss or accept the complaint by examining whether the class certification needs for adequate representation, typicality, commonality and number are met (Zawada, 2018). The last stage is the appeal stage, where George Fairways will decide whether to appeal the final action.
References
Minarsky v. Susquehanna County, 895 F.3d 303 (3d Cir. 2018).
Stockdale, M. S., Bell, M. P., Crosby, F., & Berdahl, J. (2020). From me too to what now: advancing scholarship on sex harassment issue 1: a persistent problem. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal.
Swyear v. Fare Foods Corp., 911 F.3d 874 (7th Cir. 2018).
Zawada, B. (2018). Me Too: The EEOC, workplace sexual harassment, and the modern workplace. Wis. JL Gender, & Soc’y, 33, 199.
[1] No. 17-2646 (3d Cir. 2018)
[2] No. 18-2108 (7th Cir. 2018)
[3] No. 17-2646 (3d Cir. 2018)
[4] No. 18-2108 (7th Cir. 2018)
[5] No. 17-2646 (3d Cir. 2018)
write