This case could be considered sexual harassment in the form of hostile work environment for many reasons. If true, Simonsky created an intimidating and hostile work environment by revving his fork engine and driving straight for her, refusing to take any directions and or ripping directions from her up, throwing cigarettes at her, stating to other employees that women do not belong in the warehouse and Simonsky stating that he wished he would have killed another employee that held her position prior. To be considered hostile work environment the behavior must be pervasive, frequent and severe which seems to be true. This case also touches all five prima facie points since it was intentional and unwanted, severe, negatively affected the working conditions, reasonable and management was aware and did not attempt to stop the problem. SenGlas’s sexual harassment policy states that if an employee has been subject to sexual harassment they need to report complaints immediately, make a written record of the incidents and make the disapproval known the that harasser. Before investigation we do not know if Mary Booth made the disapproval known to her harasser. She did record all of the incidents in her written report but lacked date and time of each incident and they would have to be within 180 days. She did however let the supervisor know she was uncomfortable with the behavior of her coworker …show more content…
Steps to implementing the best solution for this case would begin with listening to Mary Booths complaint in a professional matter and taking the complaint seriously to prepare a written report of the findings. Listen without judgment and collect all facts with as much time and detail as possible as well as all witnesses. Collect all information available and begin the interviewing process starting with Mary, then to Bob Simonsky, followed by all witnesses then finally the supervisor that did not act to prevent when becoming aware of the situation. If the complaint is true the next step would be to attempt reconciliation without a lawsuit. If true, Simonsky would be in violation of the sexual harassment policy and accountable for disciplinary action including possible discharge. If true, my opinion would be to discharge him to prevent this happening again in the future and putting the company at risk. If an agreement cannot come to terms within the company then a complaint may be filed with the EEC and the two options would be a “right to sue” letter or aiding the victim in federal court which is