Sexual Harassment
Burlington Industries, Inc. V Ellerth
Sexual Harassment is a crippling realty in any workplace. Since sexual harassment is considered a problematic issues in today’s realty, the effect of the outcome can be very devastating to any organization, individuals who the victim or the accuser, which is why any harassment situation should be reported, so that others would learn and be aware of violating violates TITLE VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, sexual harassment is not necessary about sex but rather more of power. “In the hands of the wrong person, power can be dangerous. That's especially the case in the workplace, where the abuse of power can lead to sexual harassment” (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070403184604.htm) empowerment can mean anything however in a workforce environment it can either have a positive side or a dark side which that is very common in today’s realty. In any organization there are individuals who use empowerment to inspire and there are others who uses as an advantaged on their behalf.
What is sexual Harassment? “is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature such that submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment." (http://www.allisontaylor.com/wrongful_termination/sexual_harassment.asp) Sexual harassment cases are becoming more popular now that it was in the past decade. Sexual Harassment is considered it an issues, “by 1998, 95% of large employers in the U.S. had harassment grievance policies, and 70% of U.S. companies provided training related to sexual harassment”. (http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/sex-discrimination-and-sexual-harassment-0)

NUMBER OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT CHARGES FILED TO THE EEOC | Years | Number of Sexual Harassment Charges20 | Total Number of Charges Received by EEOC21 | Sexual Harassment as a Percentage of All Charges22 | 1997 | 15,889 | 80,680 | 19.7% | 2011 | 11,364 | 99,947 | 11.4% |
(http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/sex-discrimination-and-sexual-harassment-0)

Both sexual harassment and gender discrimination is very much similar in difference circumstances within a workforce environment however the effect of the outcome is very much similar. The difference between the two is that a sexual harassment is more of an outside job performance which is usually considered to an individual as an unwelcome gesture or advances. “Harassment is conduct presumably engaged in for personal gratification, because of meanness or bigotry, or for other personal motives.”( http://www.sexualharassmentguide.com/the-difference-between-sexual-harassment-and-gender-discrimination/) In contrast to gender discrimination the effect is similar however the process is quite different, gender discrimination are more an individual not receiving the right reviews of their performances such as promotion or even the process of hiring within an organization due to discrimination by management in personnel decision based on an employee’s sex. Harassment is considered morally wrong and legally actionable where individuals are able to file a claim under Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. As the chart indicated sex/gender discrimination has become more common in the past few years and even todays workforce as well.
Percentages Increases in EEOC charges filed, from 2006-2007

(http://agingandwork.bc.edu/documents/GPB05_UnitedStates_2009-11-30.pdf)
Sexual Harassment has several forms however there are two types that has been an alarming issues throughout any organization affected by sexual harassment claims. Sexual harassment has been broken into two groups, “Quid Pro Quo”, and “Hostile Environment”. One type of sexual harassment form is known as “quid pro quo” or “Vicarious Liability” which is the most commonly recognized in any workplace. What is Quid Pro Quo? “A quid pro quo is what each person in a deal expects to get from the other. In employment law, quid pro quo sometimes refers to a type of sexual harassment in which workplace rewards are explicitly linked to the victim's willingness to submit to unwanted sexual advances” (http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/quid-pro-quo-term.html) For example, A managerial position would say to an employee, if you want this (Promotion, more vacation time, raised, keep your job) go out with him/her, basically considered blackmail to many. The Burlington vs. Ellerth follows the basis of quid pro quo, where he “had hesitations about promoting her because she was not loose enough. Slowik also refused to answer Ellerth work-related questions over the phone unless she told him what she was wearing”. (http://www.equalrights.org/publications/reports/briefing/ellerth.asp )
What is Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment, and according to most legal definition it is “Where a person is subject to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature to such an extent that it alters the conditions of the person's employment and creates an abusive working environment.” ( http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h016.htm) For example, uninvited touching or comments such as dirty jokes or even physical assault would be considered a hostile environment sexual harassment. A claim by Kimberly Ellerth was a step forward to every victim’s claim of sexual harassment in a working environment. A 1998 court case of Ellerth vs. Burlington Ind., Ellerth has claimed that her employer Slowik harassment by continuing “to subject her to unwanted touching of her body; numerous offensive jokes; unsolicited comments about her body, particularly her breasts, legs and buttocks, to others in her presence; and unsolicited offensive comments about other women’s bodies.” (http://www.equalrights.org/publications/reports/briefing/ellerth.asp) The inappropriate behaviors in which vice president, Theodore Slowik was conducting toward Kimberly Ellerth is considered a sexual harassment.
To determine whether an individual is being sexual harassed, EEOC investigators look into what form of sexual harassment it falls into so that they can determine whether the conduct was either a “quid pro quo” or a” hostile work environment”, than they will dig deeper into clarifying whether the alleged harasser is a co-worker or supervisor, how frequently it was repeated toward the victim, were there any additional perpetrator toward the harassment and also what happens when a higher level manager such as a senior management became aware of the situation to the extent of how they dealt with the harassment claim. When an EEOC determines if a claim is considered sexual harassment, they will perform a full investigation on every details regarding the claim, which is why any individual who is either the alleged harasser or the victim their entire information will be collected even if it’s not part of the case which may be used in a court hearing as evidence to both parties. “The objective severity of harassment is judged from the perspective of a reasonable person, considering “all the circumstances.”(EEOC, 1998)
In the case of Burlington Ind. vs. Ellerth, Ellerth has filed in violation of Title VII with sexual harassment under a hostile environment and a quid pro quo, which EEOC has to investigate into the claim. Kimberly Ellerth quit her job as a sales person at Burlington Industries after working there for about 15 months; she was frequently subjected of harassment by her superior Ted Slowik, which will be investigated by EEOC to determine if the claim by Kimberly was a violation of her rights under the Title VII of civil Rights Act 1964. In this particular case of Ellerth, there are a fact that has indicated of sexual harassment- Hostile work environment and quid pro quo. 1. "Slowik made a series of comments about Ellerth’s legs and breasts, stating “you know, Kim, I could make your life very hard or very easy at Burlington” 2. “Demanded that Ellerth perform what she understood to be fellatio, stating On your knees again, Kim.” 3. “Slowik informed her that he had hesitations about promoting her because she was “not loose enough.”
(http://www.equalrights.org/publications/reports/briefing/ellerth.asp)
As the case of Burlington vs. Ellerth is being investigated theses are facts that EEOC look into to determine if Kimberly was violated, as stated above in the situation between both employees there are strong evidence that’s it is a case of sexual harassment. Since Burlington has a policy of sexual harassment which is taken very seriously, it is a good sign that Ellerth has decided to file a claim against the company, accuser so that her employer would be liable to her emotional and psychical damages she had to endure while working for Burlington Ind.
Actually all unreasonable behavior in any organization that leads to harm to any individuals is not penalized by law, in some cases most law does not actually step into a case to punish people for their mistake or accident. The law tends to correct and limit unreasonable behavior, which can define between decisions whether it’s wrong or good.
“When it comes to injuries, there are three types of unreasonable behaviors recognized under the law: 1. Acts which are not reasonable, but still commonly done by people; 2. Acts which are not reasonable and not commonly done by people; 3. Acts that are unreasonable that are commonly done by others or done by many others along with you, but are inherently dangerous. “(http://www.forinjuries.com/index.php/is-it-reasonable-to-be-unreasonable) What is Severe?