Employment Law- Anne Marie Grozdanich V. Leisure Hills Health Center

Anne Marie Grozdanich vs . blank Hills concernNameClass , SectionProfessor NameOctober 29 , 2005Anne Marie Grozdanich vs . Leisure Hills CenterHas there been quid master quo /tangible duty activeness worryingNeither term can be applied to this field of study . Quid pro quo , or uncouth consideration , is an exchange of valuables between parties , wherein each troupe has something to egest and receive . In this campaign , the complainant Anne , was not presented with an run for exchange of valuables , the valuable being in this pillow slip sexual gratification in exchange for Anne s employmentTangible employment follow up bedevilment has been outlined by the U .S Supreme coquet in 2003 . According to The Court , tangible employment action harassment constitutes a significant change in employment perspective . su ch as hiring , firing , failing to levy , reassignment with significantly different responsibilities , or a decision cause a significant change in benefits (Starr and Strauss , 2003 . In the case presented , of these actions occurredHas there been a hostile work environsAfter first instruction of this case , the initial answer would be yes there just must be a hostile work environment . Upon surrounding(prenominal) examination , however , this question becomes quite interesting . A hostile work environment , at its very chief(a) level , includes reiterate unloved conduct , sexual or oppositewise . In this case , the term thrown-away(prenominal) becomes extremely measurable . Assuming for a moment that the on the wholeeged allegations then took quad , a hostile work environment cannot be completed because the complainant did not express that any doings was unwanted , leaving period for it to become a repeated unwanted offenseThe complainant overturned the situation until it progressed into great! er offensive behaviorsWas Leisure Hills investigating adequateThe investigating was quick , but not seamless in its timing .

Swift to interview some(prenominal) the complainant and assert harasser , the company waiting a sidereal day succession to interview potential knockoutes , thus leaving time for whiz or both of the parties to taint the memories of the go throughes Furthermore , the time leave between the interviews could have also served to further try the memories of the witness because of the clear dislike between parties . In profit to the witness problem there were only two , in-house , inve stigators , both of whom could be swayed by past events and personal feelingsIn to conduct this investigation at its unspoiltest capacity , there should have been at to the lowest degree whizz outside , impartial investigator . In auxiliary , all interviews should have been conducted on the same day without some(prenominal) time lapsing between interviewsWhat , if any , disciplinary or other remedial actions should Leisure Hills issueThe minimum actions The Leisure Hills Center should take are as followsTheresa Harding should receive a indite ensample concerning her disregard for company policy . Harding fully admitted she suggested to the complainant to unless avoid Parson . Harding never suggested to the complainant that she should a charge with attention , which is company policyParsons should be removed from his post and reassigned or complete Parsons showed little compassion for the complainant . If his behavior was truly exculpatory , he would not...If you wan t to get a full essay, nightclub it on our website: ! OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper