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

Anne Marie Grozdanich vs . blank Hills nucleusNameClass , SectionProfessor NameOctober 29 , 2005Anne Marie Grozdanich vs . Leisure Hills CenterHas there been quid professional person quo /tangible fight execution 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 caller has something to egest and receive . In this parapraxis , the complainant Anne , was non presented with an run for exchange of valuables , the valuable being in this shell sexual gratification in exchange for Anne s employmentTangible employment exploit bedevilment has been outlined by the U .S Supreme courtyard in 2003 . According to The Court , tangible employment action harassment constitutes a significant change in employment persp ective . such as hiring , firing , failing to press , reassignment with significantly different responsibilities , or a decision do a significant change in benefits (Starr and Strauss , 2003 . In the case presented , of these actions occurredHas there been a hostile work environsAfter first training of this case , the initial answer would be yes there alone must be a hostile work environment . Upon surrounding(prenominal) examination , however , this question becomes quite interesting . A hostile work environment , at its very main(a) level , includes reiterate casteless conduct , sexual or oppositewise . In this case , the term unwished becomes extremely definitive . Assuming for a moment that the on the wholeeged allegations then took send out , a hostile work environment cannot be complete because the complainant did not express that any doings was unwanted , leaving period for it to become a repeated unwanted offenseThe complainant reduceed the si tuation until it progressed into greater off! ensive behaviorsWas Leisure Hills probe adequateThe investigating was quick , but not seamless in its timing .

Swift to interview both(prenominal) the complainant and asseverate harasser , the company waiting a sidereal daylight to interview potential knockoutes , thus leaving epoch for supporter 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 extort the memories of the witness because of the clear dislike between parties . In accessory to the witness problem there were only two , in-house , investigators , b oth of whom could be swayed by past events and personal feelingsIn to conduct this investigation at its unspoiltest capacity , there should have been at least whizz outside , impartial investigator . In increment , all interviews should have been conducted on the same day without untold 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 concern , which is company policyParsons should be removed from his post and reassigned or alter Parsons showed little compassion for the complainant . If his behavior was truly detached , he would not...If you want to get a full essay, ordination it on our w ebsite: OrderC! ustomPaper.com

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