Was the bank justified in terminating Darrell on the grounds of his prior embezzlement conviction? Explain. * I would have to disagree considering that Darrell had already disclosed that information on his application as well as to the interviewer. The first interviewer should have also relayed Darrell’s embezzlement information to the second interviewer. Fortunately for the bank, the cause of Darrell’s terminations was sexual harassment due to his inappropriate behavior towards his female coworker.
Would the bank have grounds to terminate Darrell even if he had not been convicted of embezzlement? Explain. * It highly depends on the company’s policy of sexual harassment. Some company policies will allow involved parties a chance to tell their side of the story while others have a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment. In addition, some companies will investigate all allegations of harassment and take the appropriate corrective measures in response to any investigations.
Apparently, in this case, Darrell’s employer had absolutely no tolerance for his misconduct.
Does Darrell's behavior with the female teller constitute sexual harassment, and if yes, what type? * Yes, because Darrell touched his co-worker inappropriately which was clearly unwelcomed despite the attraction between the two (flirting and whatnot). This type of sexual harassment is called a hostile work environment claim involves a supervisor, co-worker or customer making unwelcome sexual comments or remarks, or suggestively touching or acting in a sexually inappropriate way toward an employee.
Were there any ethical problems with the way the bank handled the initial and subsequent interviews? Explain * Absolutely! Darrell was honest on his application and on his interview. Although the first interviewer did not inform the second interviewer on Darrell’s embezzlement