In other words, that Harvey treated female and male employees the same way. Who should prevail? If you were Harvey’s supervisor, what would you do?

The EEOC filed a suit against NEA-Alaska, a labor union representing teachers and other public school employees, alleging that the union had created a sex-based hostile work environment for three female employees. The female employees testified that repeated and severe instances had occurred during which Thomas Harvey, the unions assistant executive director, shouted; used foul language; invaded their space (including grabbing a female employee from behind); and made threatening physical gestures. NEA-Alaska responded that Harvey treated male and female employees the same way and there was no evidence that Harvey made sexual overtures or lewd comments, or that he referred to women in gender-specific terms, or that he imposed gender-specific requirements on the female employees. In other words, that Harvey treated female and male employees the same way. Who should prevail? If you were Harvey’s supervisor, what would you do?

Provide sound reasoning for your stance and back it up with references, if possible. Your logic should be factual, not emotional. Then, reply to one or more of your classmates’ postings.

MODEL ANSWER

It is the mandate of any labor union to ensure that all its members are protected. Having a good working environment, free of harassment is one such obligation. It has to be clearly understood however that these privileges should not have gender tags embedded on them especially in the wake of equality both in the private and public sector. The case of EEOC against NEA-Alaska presents a battle between aspects of gender equality and the question of fairness and gentleness when dealing with women. From where I sit, the argument… towards them (which would have probably been a legitimate reason). It can be argued in law that shouting and use of foul language is the nature of Mr. Harvey especially owing to the fact that he doesn’t use the language discriminatively (United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit 2005). The fact there is no direct evidence linking sexual discrimination or misuse of position in what is commonly referred to as “occupational advantage,” any court will great omission in the case and treat the allegations by EEOC as mere rumors and innuendo that have no backing in law. In the case, there is no evidence of one reporting incidents of discrimination. As much as the court can argue that Harvey’s behavior was motivated by lust, there is no physical evidence that directly proves he went an extra mile in sexually molesting female teachers. For this…