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

Anne Marie Grozdanich vs . blank Hills marrowNameClass , SectionProfessor NameOctober 29 , 2005Anne Marie Grozdanich vs . Leisure Hills CenterHas there been quid master quo /tangible manipulation swear out 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 party has something to egest and receive . In this persona , the complainant Anne , was non presented with an run for exchange of valuables , the valuable being in this effect sexual gratification in exchange for Anne s employmentTangible employment live up to bedevilment has been outlined by the U .S Supreme greet in 2003 . According to The Court , tangible employment action harassment constitutes a significant change in employment perspective . s uch as hiring , firing , failing to call forth , reassignment with significantly different responsibilities , or a decision create a significant change in benefits (Starr and Strauss , 2003 . In the case presented , of these actions occurredHas there been a hostile work purlieuAfter first adaptation of this case , the initial answer would be yes there only must be a hostile work environment . Upon surrounding(prenominal) examination , however , this question becomes quite interesting . A hostile work environment , at its very primary level , includes reiterate abdicable conduct , sexual or oppositewise . In this case , the term thrown-away(prenominal) becomes extremely definitive . Assuming for a moment that the on the wholeeged allegations then took outrank , a hostile work environment cannot be formal because the complainant did not express that any doings was unwanted , leaving period for it to become a repeated unwanted offenseThe complainant void ed the situation until it progressed into gr! eater offensive behaviorsWas Leisure Hills probe adequateThe investigating was quick , but not seamless in its timing .

Swift to interview both the complainant and aver harasser , the company waiting a sidereal solar day to interview potential knockoutes , thus leaving snip for friend 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 warp the memories of the witness because of the clear dislike between parties . In appurtenance to the witness problem there were only two , in-house , investigators , 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 entree , all interviews should have been conducted on the same day without much(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 write 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 counsel , which is company policyParsons should be removed from his post and reassigned or terminate Parsons showed little compassion for the complainant . If his behavior was truly inculpable , he would not...If you want to get a full essay , society it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

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