Misplaced Affections: Discharge for Sexual Harassment
The most commonly found sexual harassment in a workplace is, quid pro quo harassment and hostile environment harassment. In the case of Gilbury and Lewiston, hostile environment harassment was claimed by Mrs. Gilbury. At the district’s Advanced Learning Program, Mrs. Gilbury, a fifth grade teacher, claimed that Mr. Lewiston, who was a senior maintenance employee, his behavior was odd, and felt he was paying more attention to her in an inappropriate manor. On May 25, 2007, Mr. Lewiston told Mrs. Gilbury he was very fond of her, and she had very beautiful eyes. As time went on, Mr. Lewiston became more aggressive and manipulating on how he was approaching Mrs. Gilbury. First, the roses and a card when the new school year started. Second, asking her out to lunch when she replied, “No, we need to remain just friends”. She even made the statement to him that she was happily married. Which is quite obvious she was not interested and he made her feel very uncomfortable, creating an intimidating, hostile working environment. The final straw was when he approached Mrs. Gilbury at her vehicle and stroked her hair. Even though, he claims he was just going to pat her on the shoulder to try and calm her down. Finally, on June 9, 2008, Mr. Lewiston left another card on Mrs. Gilburys desk explaining that he was wrong, hopes they could still remain friends, and wished her happiness with her family and job. With this being said, Mrs. Gilbury took the appropriate steps to obtain from the Western Justice Court and the EEOC officer a sexual harassment complaint against Mr. Lewiston. For violation of the district’s sexual harassment policy, Mr. Lewiston was terminated on July 15, 2008. In a related case, Caldwell School Board member-elect Sheila Harris has brought a lawsuit against the Caldwell School District and a former Caldwell school principal claiming that neither adequately responded to a school janitor’s alleged sexual harassment of her. The lawsuit, filed in December, 2011, claims that former Van Buren Elementary School janitor Jeff Foreman rubbed against Harris — who worked at the school as a teacher’s aide — and made other unwanted and sexually explicit actions in her presence. The alleged harassment took place in the spring and fall semesters of 2008, according to the complaint filed in the 3rd District Court (BUTTS, 2011). Sexual harassment happens in other countries. As of recently, a teacher of a municipal corporation-run primary school has accused the principal and another male teacher of demanding sexual favors and threatening to defame her if she did not give in to their demands. The teacher working in school number 51 of Pipardi Sheri in Salabatpura lodged a complaint late on Tuesday night naming principal Rakesh Desai and teacher Ramesh Parmar. She alleged that it was Parmar, who first started making indecent advances and demanding sexual favors two years ago. Parmar is also the president of municipal school teachers' union. Later, the principal also resorted to the same. As per Supreme Court directives, a four-member committee of anti-sexual harassment cell was formed by the NPSS and it started probe some 20 days ago. However, the teacher submitted an application to the city police commissioner after which a complaint was lodged on Tuesday (2014). Human Recourse plays a huge roll in handling these types of situations in the workforce. The cases mentioned would be considered “hostile environment harassment” and go against Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Questions:
Evaluate the conduct of Peter Lewiston against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment.
The EEOC states under Sexual Harassment; it is unlawful to harass a person (applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcomed sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm, n.d.). * May 25, 2007 - Mr. Lewiston told Mrs. Gilbury he was very fond of her, and she had very beautiful eyes. * June 7, 2008 – Lewiston sent roses and a card when the new school year started. * June 8, 2008 – Lewiston sent another card with a handwritten note in which he stated, “I hope you can someday return my affections for you. I need you so much”. In addition, asked her to lunch. * June 9, 2008 – Lewiston sent another card along with a long letter stating that he was wrong, wished her happiness with her family and job, but wanted to remain friends.
I am stumped to why Mrs. Gilbury did not appear at the appeal. The question is, did this situation offend her as much as she claimed? She did state, “It’s been a long time since anyone sent me roses”. I feel that statement kept a door open for Lewiston to continue his behavior. Still is not an excuse to go against Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Should the intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities? Explain.
Yes, his actions were inappropriate and unprofessional in the working environment. When he sent her a card on the 8th of June stating, “I hope you can someday return my affections for you. I need you so much”. She had already told him, she was a happily married woman and we are just friends. I feel those two statements should have stopped his actions towards her.
If you were the district’s EEOC officer, what would you conclude? What disciplinary action, if any, would you take?
I would gather all evidence from both parties for review. Put Lewiston on leave until the situation was concluded. I would agree dismissing Lewiston based on the grievous conduct which he created an “extremely sexual hostile” environment for Mrs. Gilbury.

Works Cited
BUTTS, M. (2011). Idaho Press-Tibune. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm. (n.d.).
Unknown. (2014). The Times of India.