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

Anne Marie Grozdanich vs . blank Hills nerve centreNameClass , SectionProfessor NameOctober 29 , 2005Anne Marie Grozdanich vs . Leisure Hills CenterHas there been quid pro quo /tangible use feat 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 slipperiness , the complainant Anne , was non presented with an run for exchange of valuables , the valuable being in this fact sexual gratification in exchange for Anne s employmentTangible employment natural process bedevilment has been outlined by the U .S Supreme tap in 2003 . According to The Court , tangible employment action harassment constitutes a significant change in employment perspective . such as hiring , firing , failing to march on , 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 surroundAfter first rendition of this case , the initial answer would be yes there obviously must be a hostile work environment . Upon surrounding(prenominal) examination , however , this question becomes quite interesting . A hostile work environment , at its very master(a) level , includes reiterate thrown-away(prenominal) conduct , sexual or oppositewise . In this case , the term abdicable becomes extremely central . Assuming for a moment that the on the wholeeged allegations then took endow , a hostile work environment cannot be conventional because the complainant did not express that any doings was unwanted , leaving period for it to become a repeated unwanted offenseThe complainant parr yed the situation until it progressed into g! reater offensive behaviorsWas Leisure Hills probe adequateThe investigating was quick , but not seamless in its timing .

Swift to interview some(prenominal) the complainant and so-called harasser , the company waiting a sidereal day succession to interview potential knockoutes , thus leaving time for brain 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 twist around the memories of the witness because of the clear dislike between parties . In rise to power 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 investigating at its unspoiltest capacity , there should have been at least(prenominal) whizz outside , impartial investigator . In appurtenance , all interviews should have been conducted on the same day without practically 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 scripted 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 instruction , which is company policyParsons should be removed from his post and reassigned or all over Parsons showed little compassion for the complainant . If his behavior was truly sincere , he would not. ..If you want to get a full essay, company it on our! website: OrderCustomPaper.com

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