EMC Confronts Harassment Charges
Introduction
According to the lawsuit, women claimed that the company was discriminated against female employees (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2009 p.87 para.1). Furthermore the women alleged that female employees were not promoted to receive pay raise if they refused to “smile, drink, swear, hunt, fish, and tolerate strip clubs” (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2009 p.87 para.2.) Those who refused were retaliated against with offensive actions.

Review/Analysis of the Case EMC did violate many Equal Employment Opportunity laws. According to Equal Pay Act of 1963, “men and women performing equal jobs are to receive equal pay” (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2009 p.59). However, EMC pay data showed that saleswomen received $39,354 less than salesmen (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2009 p.87). Title VII of CRA “forbids discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2009 p. 59). The EEOC considers sexual harassment of employees as unlawful employment discrimination. The behaviors that are considered as sexual harassments are “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical contact of sexual nature” (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2009 p. 73 para.1). Another law that EMC had broken is Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. According to the lawsuit, “employment decisions were based in part on consideration of individual’s sex, pregnancy, and marital and parental status” (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2009 p. 87). I believe that EMC can continue to sell aggressively and avoid charges of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination. To avoid sexual harassment charges, they first need to have extensive training and discussions on sexual harassment and how to avoid them. The