Misplaced Affections: Discharge of Sexual Harassment

The harassment Peter Lewistons created was that of a Hostile

Environment. The EEOCs definition of Hostile Environment is when
unwelcomed sexual conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonable
interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working environment. (Bohlander & Snell, 2010, p.117) Lewistons
conduct included letters, notes and invitations. All of which were rejected by
Mrs. Beverly Gilbury. The matter became more serious as he became so
persistent. Mrs. Gilbury made it clear she was married and would like to keep
their relationship strictly friendly. However, it is very clear that Peter
Lewiston was not understanding or choses to ignore her request of being just
friends. He kept harassing Mrs. Gilbury by sending her notes, flowers, cards
and letters. Peter Lewistons action of appearing when Mrs. Gilbury went to
her car made the situation extremely intimidating for her, not only by
following her but also by touching her. Whether the action was unintentional
or not. The situation became extremely uncomfortable for the victim, she
was then forced to bring up the issue.
Lewistons motives should definitely be considered when deciding
sexual harassment for various reasons. He was told a number of times that
the relationship they had was strictly friendship. It should have stopped
there. However, he continued to harass Mrs. Gilbury and would not give up
regardless of the previous outcomes of his invitations and gestures. His
intent was clear, and regardless of the number of failed attempts he was to

keep trying until we succeeded. Most importantly, it should have never

reached to point to him touching her, whether it was by accident or whether
he was only intending to console her. She was already frightened by his
previous actions and was definitely going to be on guard for anything else
that happened between her and Peter Lewiston. Peter Lewistons motives
were clear as he repeatedly asked Mrs. Gilbury to lunch and would continue
to send her notes and messages. Peter Lewiston knew his conduct was
unlawful and most importantly not accepted by the victim and yet he did
nothing to take correction action or remedy it.
Due to the Peter Lewistons persistence, I would conclude that in fact
his actions were sexual harassment. The simple fact that he continued to
pursue Mrs. Gilbury is enough to conclude that this is in fact hostile
environment harassment and should be addressed immediately. Although it
did no help Mrs. Gilburys case when she did not appear for the hearing the
employers should have taken action on their own. Because Lewiston
continued after he was told no, he is guilty of sexual harassment. The
disciplinary action that I would have taken in this case would have been
firing Lewiston as he constantly and continually created a hostile
environment even after he was told she was married and would remain
friends. If he would have stopped immediately after being informed that it
was inappropriate and wouldnt have continued different measures couldve
been taken such as a corrective action or maybe even suspension for a short
period of time. However, due to his consistency in this matter and the hostile

environment he has created for a fellow employee the disciplinary action I

would choose is discharging him.

References
Bohlander, G., & Snell, S. (2010). Managing Human Resources. Mason:
Cengage Learning.