Jami Jensens Treatment - Case Study Example

?In this case, it can be seen that Jami Jensen’s treatment right from the first interview day amounts to sexual harassment. The interviewers’ behaviour particularly Mr Clark amounts to sexual harassment since he could not hide his desire for Miss Jensen. She is offered employment and later own elevated to a senior position within a short period of time after joining the company but this is conditional promotion. She has to fulfil the sexual desires of the VP, Mr Clark in order to retain this post. By any standard, it can be seen that Jensen is being sexually harassed day in day out. As such, there are certain laws that can be applied in order to address this particular issue. The Sexual Harassment Policy that is administered by the US department of state can be applied to this case. This policy clearly outlines all the actions that constitute sexual harassment such as sexually suggestive behaviour, behaviour towards a co-worker as well as conditional terms of employment where a senior person for instance seeks to gain sexual benefits from the other employee. In this case, the Sexual Harassment Policy can be invoked by the responsible authorities in order to make sure that this kind of treatment to Jensen is solved. This policy is designed to protect the victims of sexual harassment. When a complaint about sexual harassment by the other co-worker is made to the Department of State, an investigation will be carried out and the offender may be disciplined for the bad behaviour. The penalty for committing this crime often varies depending with the seriousness of the offence. When the crime is too big, the offender can even be fired from work. In some cases, the perpetrator can be reprimanded or asked to pay damages to the victim. The sexual harassment policy is designed in such a way that it protects the interests of all employees in the organization without fear or favour. This policy is also color blind in that it seeks to protect all the employees in the company regardless of their skin color, creed or belief. In this case, the VP is taking advantage of Jensen by virtue of her skin color. The fact that she is dark does not entitle the VP to advance his sexual interests towards her since this is a serious crime. In the US, sexual discrimination on the basis of skin color is a serious offence and it can be noted that the VP is committing a crime by exposing his sexual desires towards Miss Jensen. Ethically, the VP should behave in a way which befits his status in the organization. This will also go a long way in building the much needed respect from the co-workers. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) can also be applied to this case since it is designed to protect the interests of all people regardless of their race or creed. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces this law in the US. As noted in this case, Jensen is a light olive skinned black woman from Atlanta and this may be the reason why she is sexually harassed. The sexual harasser seeks to take advantage of her race to gain sexual favours in return for securing her job in the company. The other issue in this case is that her contract is not written and she is not offered salary that is similar to other co-workers. This shows that there is a sinister motive by the VP to take advantage of Jensen by virtue of her race and sex. The other law that can be applied in such a case is the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Once a person has been offered a job, then he or she is entitled to get pay that is equal to other co-workers that are doing the same job with him or her. It can be noted that Jensen accepts the employment offer even though the salary is different from other employees. The Equal Pay Act is meant to protect people like Jensen since they also have rights like any other employee in the company. Jensen also goes against the wishes of the VP to attend to her family and she is demoted from the position she has been elevated to. She also loses her salary since it is slashed to $40 000 a year. However, she is promised that she can get a pay rise once she positively changes her mind towards Mr Clarke. This devastates her and she even visited a psychiatrist. Under the Federal Law, it can be seen that Jensen can sue for damages since she has lost her salary and she has been devastated by the experience she has been exposed to. This is well planned but the action is negatively impacting on an innocent person. She can sue the company using Section 102 as well as Section 103 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. This act makes it legal to sue the company for compensatory benefits in the event of intentional and selective discrimination. A closer analysis of this case shows that Jensen suffers these loses as a result of intentional behaviour of Mr Clark working in cohorts with the human resources department to manipulate her so that she can fulfil his sexual desires. Jensen can also sue for punitive damages given that her case is carefully planned. The damages caused are intentional and they are meant to silence her so that she can obey the demands of her boss. In the event that I am the judge, I think I would make a tough ruling in this case. The actions of the offender are intentional and they are meant to fulfil his selfish sexual desires. As such, I would suggest punitive damages from the offender so that he would not commit the same crime in future. The other reason why the offender deserves a tough judgment is that his actions have caused untold suffering to an innocent person who also has rights to live a free and peaceful life without being discriminated against by other people. As stated by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, every person has a right to live a peaceful life without interference. Even at work, each individual should be given the opportunity to enjoy his or her work without interference from the other co-workers. In most cases, the senior male employees in the organization have a tendency advance their sexual interests especially in the young female employees in the company. By any standard, this action amounts to sexual harassment and the employees involved should also be protected by the law. The case of Jensen reflects violation of her rights. Justice should prevail and the perpetrator of this crime should get a stiff penalty so as to deter other people from committing the same offence in future. This will also help to restore dignity to Jensen if she is compensated for being badly treated at work by her boss. This case also shows that Jensen has lost her position as well as money as a result of the fact that she refuses to give in to the demands of the VP. This is equivalent to discrimination and the law should be applied in a fair way so as to protect the interests of the other individuals in the company who are also seen as victims. A critical analysis of the given case shows that Jensen deserves to be compensated since she is a victim of sexual harassment. Just like anyone else in the organization, Jensen wishes to pursue her career in such a way that she can fulfil her needs and interests. However, all her hopes of a peaceful and prosperous working relationship in the company with others have been scuttled by the kind of treatment she get from the superiors. The issue of equality can also be taken into consideration in this case. It seems that the VP is trying to show that he is more equal than Jensen by virtue of his seniority in the organization as well as his skin colour. However, this is not supposed to be the case since there are provisions in the American law which state that all people in the workplace are equal. The Civil Rights Act (1964) is comprised of certain provisions that make it an offence to ill-treat other employees in the organization or to look down upon them as inferior by virtue of their sexuality as well as skin color. This law states that people holding the same position in the organization should be treated as equal and they should also be entitled to get equal salary when they are performing the same job. Unfortunately, it can be seen that the pay rise as well as promotion for Miss Jenson are conditional. She should satisfy the sexual desires of her boss in order to enjoy the benefits in the organization. This action is unethical and Miss Jenson can sue for damages since this is equivalent to abuse. If she approaches the right department that deals with issues related to employment and labour, her case can be solved in an amicable way. Read More