You Be the Judge
Matthew McCown
LAW/531
1/11/16
William Eshelman

Defining the case of sexual harassment between the plaintiff and the defendant The sexual harassment case presented took the plaintiffs case of potential loss of promotion due to the defendant’s actions of placing a risqué picture on the plaintiff’s background on his computer desktop at work. The plaintiff’s supervisor whom is in charge of making the decisions for promotions is assumed by the plaintiff to have changed his mind due to discovery of this image on the computer. Throughout the course of the discussion, information regarding the plaintiff’s relationship with the defendant becomes clearer. The plaintiff and the defendant do have prior history engaging in conversations and physical behavior that could be a violation of the other’s personal space. The only reason the case has been brought to lawsuit was due to the potential damages that have occurred as a result of the defendants most recent actions. Had this situation never occurred it is assumed that the behavior would be continuing. The plaintiff had never discussed with work place officials or the defendant that the behavior between the two was inappropriate and should stop. According to (The Advocates, 2016) “Some countries have criminalized sexual harassment in the workplace or have legislation that is considered to apply to workplace harassment”. The plaintiff has sought reprieve from the potential damages in the loss of the promotion, however due to the lack of the plaintiff’s own responsibility to end the behavior in the work place by either speaking to supervisors or directly to the defendant, the defendant didn’t know the behavior was not welcomed. The judge’s ruling indicates that the defendant although should have refrained from committing such behavior, did not do anything out the social norm between her and the plaintiff and their small group of co-workers who are also involved. The judge did question the plaintiff to see if any of the other person’s in their group at work (all males) would have this suit filed against them for performing the same task which is crucial to determine the role of discrimination against the female employee if there were to be any (Workplace fairness, 2016)
Employee and employer liability The employer does have a small amount of potential liability in this case. During the course of the questioning by the judge the plaintiff and the defendant both agree that the employer has never provided any type of training that employees must sign off on in regards to sexual harassment. In the same sense, with the consistent behavior happening in the workplace there was not proper employee management providing a proper professional atmosphere to work in. According to (England. D, 2016) “Sexual harassment in the workplace is generally treated as a civil wrong in the U.S. This means that the victim may sue the perpetrator (or, more typically, the employer) in civil court for monetary damages”. This means that the employer could be held responsible due to their negligence on maintaining the behavior. However, due to the lack of proof or evidence by the plaintiff, there is little responsibility on the part of the employer in this case. The plaintiff has failed to provide adequate proof against the defendant as well, along with the information that he himself has been involved in this type of workplace behavior, he now becomes just as liable of the actions as the defendant.
Contractor liability versus the employee liability When dealing with a contractor versus an employee with sexual harassment cases, things can get a little bit more difficult. Although the same information applies, liability does seem to fluctuate between employee and employer. According to (Fleck, A., 2016) “Companies will claim their contractors control their own work and therefore the companies are not liable for complaints against them. When a company runs multiple worksites for unskilled contract laborers, it might avoid liability by claiming it cannot possibly oversee all worksites”. This does create a bit of a challenge in that, unskilled labor may act differently than more professional labor and could act a little more rash when in a new setting. Presenting presents, unwelcomed comments or physical contact is never acceptable in the workplace unless otherwise stated. The fault of course will always be with the individual committing the harassment, however it is tough to prove the employer’s liability unless the employee has a prior history that is known in regards to harassment (Sexual Harassment in the Physician-Patient Interaction: Analysis of Charges Against Doctors in the State of São Paulo. (2009, November).

References
England, D. (2016). Criminal Defense Lawyer. Retrieved from http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/is-sexual-harassment-workplace-a-crime.htm Fleck, A. (2016). Truthout. Retrieved from http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/18470- contractor-status-complicates-workplace-sexual-harassment
The Advocates. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.stopvaw.org/workplace_sexual_harassment_as_a_crime
Sexual Harassment in the Physician-Patient Interaction: Analysis of Charges Against Doctors in the State of São Paulo. (2009, November). Clinics, (64), . Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2780524/
Workplace Fairness. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.workplacefairness.org/sexual-gender- discrimination