Running head: Case 8.1 Jacksonville Shipyards

Jacksonville Shipyards
Ketty Taboada
Strayer University
Business Ethics-BUS290
February 24, 2008
Abstract
Sexual misconduct in the workplace has been a problem for women and in recent year’s men as well. Unfortunately, in the past this topic was overlooked until the case of Meritor Savings v. Vinson. We will establish the criteria for determining when unwelcome conduct of sexual nature constitutes harassment according to Title VII. Additionally, we will ascertain how to evaluate evidence of harassment, whether a work environment is sexually antagonistic, holding employers liable legally responsible for sexual harassment by supervisors; and analyzing preventive and corrective action …show more content…

This type of information is typically in the employee handbook as well as a company policy. Unfortunately, JSI did not include that in their policy. (Boatright 2007) On the other hand, quid pro quo is a form of harassment, in which a manager or supervisor, uses his power to approve or disapprove employment benefits to demand sexual favors from his/her subordinate. In 1986 Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson challenged whether sexual harassment violates Title VII. The plaintiff allegedly accuse her supervisor of constantly subjecting her to sexual harassment both during and after business hours as well as on and off the employer’s premises; she claim that he forced her to have sexual intercourse with him on several occasions as well as fondling her in front of other employees. The plaintiff also alleged that he would follow her to the restroom and he raped her numerous times. She claimed that she was in constant fear of loosing her job. The plaintiff testified that the conduct has stopped an approximately a year before she filled a complaint with the EEOC. The Supreme Court in Meritor declined to issue a definitive rule on employers’ liability under Title VII; however, it did deny the position that employers are legally responsible for sexually hostile environments. Further, the Court pointed out having a sexual harassment policy could help protect an employer from liability if it persuades victims of harassment to come forward early. (Heckeroth, S and Barker,