Today's flamebait debate: sexual harrasment

[LoZoccolo]

Poll question: Today's flamebait debate: sexual harrasment

Suppose a nice position opens up at a big corporation, and eight people are qualified and vying for a promotion to it, and four of them are women. The manager in charge does not fill it right away, and a month passes. "I'm seeing who's qualified" he says, and that's all he'll say. Two months pass. Six months. A year. Finally, fifteen months after the position opened up, one of the female candidates performs a sexual favor for him (offered by her, and not solicited by him) and is hired that day. Is the manager guilty of sexual harassment?

[Beware the Beast Man]

1. It's not sexual harrassment, but it sure is favoritism.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Nope. So long as he doesn't do or say anything.

Or even imply that the first person to do it would get the job.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. More likely than not yes. He is guilty of violating Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 which deals with all forms of harassment including sexual favors in return for hiring.

On edit: Of course there would need to be a complaint either from the person performing the favors or the people who were discriminated against for NOT performing the favors...so your hypothetical is missing some facts.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. More likely than not yes. He is guilty of violating Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 which deals with all forms of harassment including sexual favors in return for hiring.

[dr.strangelove]

5. If the decision to hire her was at all related to the sex act, it is..

[Nikia]

6. Yes

The people who were not hired would have recourse. I read about this somewhere.

[LoZoccolo]

7. A detail was left out.

Let's say that there's no discussion of quid pro quo or even the open position on the part of the manager or the employee.

[Pithlet]

8. Well

If he was taking a year to make the decision, and then the woman who performs favors for him gets hired that day, then it wouldn't be all that hard to guess what probably happened, there. The way you set it up makes it look very much like the sexual favor is what got her the job.

And, yes, it is sexual harassment. He had no business offering or accepting favors like that. No one in a hiring position, regardless of gender, does.

[LoZoccolo]

9. Well yeah, it's like he was waiting for one of them to step forward.

But I don't know how you could prove anything without so much as a discussion of quid pro quo on behalf of either party.

[Pithlet]

10. I'm not a law expert.

But, I would think that the time he took to "make the decision" and then suddnely made the decision the same day, that it wouldn't be too hard to prove. Particularly if they didn't conintue a relationship from that point. But, as I said, I'm not an expert.

[4_Legs_Good]

15. Who would be the guilty party here to press charges?

It seems as both parties involved wouldn't press any kind of charges. Other employees could complain about it in other ways, but I don't think Sexual Harassment would come up.

david

[TrogL]

11. He is allowing the woman to commit sexual harassment

and allowing sexual harassment in the office.

[RedCloud]

12. And since this corporation could be a porno studio...

Who's to say?

[trof]

13. Of course not! This is known as "standard business practice".

hee
;-)

[realisticphish]

14. no

unethical as fucking hell (and probably illegal), but i don't see it as sexual harrassment

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat