Case Study

1114 Words5 Pages
Question #1: Evaluate the conduct of Peter Lewiston against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment. Analysis: GIlbury and Lewiston worked together for several years. Their relationship was “cooperative”. Gilbury reported their relationship began to change and Lewiston’s behavior was “out of the ordinary”. The EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment was his actions “created an extremely sexually hostile environment” Many coworkers stated Lewiston was a “lonely” guy. Lewiston sent Gilbury several cards on different occasions one card accompanied with roses. He also asked her to lunch on 2 different occasions which she responded no to both times and told Lewiston she is “a happily married women”. One card stated “I hope you can…show more content…
2012). Although Lewiston’s actions were not severe the actions were still unwanted, therefore, Lewiston was let go because Gilbury was unable to perform her job. Snell, S., & Bohlander, G. (2012). Equal Employment Opportunity and Human Resource Management. In Managing Human Resources (16th ed.). Manson: Cengage Learning. Question #3 If you were the district’s EEOC officer, what would you conclude? What disciplinary action, if any, would you take? Analysis: Lewiston’s relationship with Gilbury began to change during year 2007-2008. Gilbury believed Lewiston was paying more attention and his behavior was “out of the ordinary”. Lewiston began to give Gilbury multiple compliments such as she had “very beautiful eyes”. He then began to leave Gilbury letters. One day at school she found 12 roses and a card from Lewiston. The card stated “ Please forgive me for thinking you could like me. I played a big fool.” He asked her to lunch for the second time and she again replied they are just friends. He then tried to apologize to Gilbury and when he approached her she became very upset. He “accidently” brushed her hair and Gilbury drove away. Lewiston again gave Gilbury another letter. He apologized for trying to develop a relationship with her. Gilbury did not file a sexual harassment claim with her supervisor

More about Case Study

Open Document