Eeoc and Sexual Harassment of Women in the WorkplaceEssay Preview: Eeoc and Sexual Harassment of Women in the WorkplaceReport this essayEEOC and Anti-Sexual Harassment and Discrimination RegulationsAnd The Effects on Women within the WorkplaceTable of ContentsIntroductionвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦ Pg 3Definition of Sexual HarassmentвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦.вЂ¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦.… Pg 4Theoretical PerspectivesвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦..Pg 4-10ConclusionвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦..…. Pg 10AbstractвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦. Pg 11ReferencesвЂ¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦.вЂ¦Ð²Ð‚¦Ð²Ð‚¦.…. Pg 12IntroductionWomen, today, have a lot more influence than in the past, particularly in the workplace. There have been enormous strides taken to ensure women are treated fairly and no longer discriminated against. While there are still many differences between men and women’s role in the workplace, women are making more of an impression than ever before. Unfortunately, with the number of workingwomen on the rise, sexual harassment has become a major issue. This is a very important issue because women are starting to gain more respect in the workplace and their roles are changing as well. Who would have thought 50 years ago that it would be possible for women to play professional sports, be elected into political office and run worldwide corporations? Women have had many trials and tribulations to endure and sexual harassment is now one of them. While harassment occurs for both men and women, women employees file the majority of the filed suits. As women gain more ground within the workplace, sexual harassment needs to be addressed and taken very seriously. Within this paper, I will demonstrate the past trends and the current trends of whether sexual harassment suits have declined with the increase in EEOC regulations. Not only does the EEOC encourage and enable everyone to be fairly employed, but they are also in charge of employee complaints or lawsuits, such as sexual harassment.
Theoretical PerspectivesSexual harassment is a serious issue within the workplace and increasing with each year. Women, as a whole, have been moving up the professional ladder, becoming more educated and successful and creating more opportunities for them than they have in the past. This issue has been widely studied and researched and there has been an upswing in the amount of lawsuits filed in general. With the increase in women in the workplace, there has been more of an increase in sexual harassment lawsuits filed by women than ever before as well.
First to understand sexual harassment, there must be clear understanding as to what sexual harassment constitutes. Webster’s Dictionary defines sexual harassment as “uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature especially by a person in authority toward a subordinate” (Webster’s online). According to a recent study, men and women were thought to have different perceptions as to what sexual harassment appears to be. As a result of the differences in definition, men were less likely to view sexual harassment as a problem and the article implies “that men may be more likely than women to initiate sexual behaviors at work that lead to complaints of harassment, since they are less likely to view such behaviors as unacceptable” (Konrad & Gutek, 1986, p. 422). In another article, there is also a questionable definition of sexual harassment as well. The results of that study show, “working women’s views of sexual harassment have not been accurately reflected in the definitions used by government agencies and in previous studies” (Powell, 2001, p. 26).
The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was created back in the 1960’s to create equal job opportunities for people from all racial backgrounds. The commission as since grown with all the laws and history, and the EEOC has made efforts to hire within the standards of their own laws. It is found that there is an increase of representation of African Americans, particularly females. However, it was also found that “More women in EEOC district offices were not associated with more complaints filed on behalf of women” (Meier, Pennington and Eller, 2005, p. 177).
While the EEOC is making changes within their own organization, there are still other companies that are struggling against sexual harassment lawsuits. In February of 2007, there was a gasoline company in Illinois that had to pay a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by four women. The lawsuit created problems for the company and it was discovered that “between 2000 and 2003, the women were subjected to fondling, lewd sexual comments and sexual intimidation by their manager’s husband, who worked odd jobs at the gasoline station” (National Petroleum News, p.10). While there are still some jobs that are better suited for males than females, there is still no reason why these circumstances should occur and women cannot be given equal chances. Even when women are given jobs, typically held by males, they are met with disrespectful behavior
The EEOC’s attitude toward sexual harassment under the new law is that it’s a problem to be solved, but it can hardly be expected that any other employment can resolve the same issues. This is evident from the actions of the EEOC and all other federal agencies.
Criminalization of Sexual Harassment under the ACA is a Big Bad Deal
There’s no doubt that discrimination is extremely egregious. Employers and the federal government must protect the rights of everyone. It is up to Congress and the U.S. Congress to act on the needs of both employees and employers to make this happen so that the health care of every American is protected.
The law criminalizes sexual harassment and the Department of Justice, while the Department of Education is responsible for protecting student sexual assault information. These two issues could be at the core of the lawsuit by the EEOC and all other federal agencies.
While the lawsuit is complicated, it’s also a good start to what can be a very costly phase of the process for the EEOC, if not the entire government. This is particularly concerning, since the EEOC’s goal is to enforce its law, but it’s difficult to believe that the other federal agencies as well could do the same. The EEUC, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Office of Civil Rights are working under multiple direction. All of these agencies must be involved in implementing the law with input from all stakeholders to ensure that we make sure the EEOC’s guidance to its employees is followed and upheld. In all cases, this means taking steps that undermine this law that protects all employees, and makes it very difficult for these agencies to make any real impact on the national safety of any kind of worker at all.
The EEOC’s decision
The Court of Appeals concluded that EEOC compliance with state laws and regulations is important, and that “most states are subject to the federal Civil Rights Act” — a statute that the Court defined as “the federal act of discriminating based on race or national origin against any person or group, or on any class of persons or groups.” The Court concluded (para. 19) that “State law does not extend the rights under its constitution” — even if those rights were subject to federal constitutional protection. Indeed, the Federalist 391 U. S., at 434-415 (emphasis added).
An example from the District of Columbia
The plaintiff in one case argued that a state law, statute, or regulation violated the Equal Protection Clause, but the Equal Protection Clause required the Attorney General to be present in “certain places, by lawful means, only in a “comprehensive manner,” meaning, by an employee’s “conspicuous” efforts to make sure other citizens were protected. The law’s existence was found to violate the Equal Protection Clause. See EEOC v. Maryland, 395 U.S., at 467, n. 6 (1969); see also H.R. Civ. Proc. § 1201b(e) (1972) (“The Secretary of State may by rule promulgate, at any time, a local ordinance that establishes a specific form of protection for the equal protected cause, from interstate mobility”); B.C. Civil Service Comm’n v. Justice of the Community, 501 C. 3d 489, 460 (1991) (plurality opinion). Similarly, in Texas v. Kowalczyk, 443 U. S. 706, 711 (1979), the Supreme Court held that an application of the Equal Protection Clause “continues to protect any individual, regardless of race, color, religion, or sex, regardless of any other factor.” Id., at 726-730 (quoting Commonwealth v. Texas, 413 U. S. 653, 673 (1973)). Such exceptions are generally permissible in such cases. H.R. Civ. Proc. § 1201a(g) (1986), which is cited in D.C. Conf. &c. v. Ohio, 388 U. S. 547 et seq., 904 (1967).
We have already noted that a state regulation does not fall into the “applies to that specific class of persons” category, i.e., a statute that “does not extend the rights under a particular statute, statute, regulation, or regulation to everyone.” See H.R. Civ. Proc. § 1201a(b)(9) (1983)(citing H.R. Civ. Proc. §§ 1401-1401, (1991)), n. 10. However, when the EEOC decided that the EEOC did not need to be present in all areas of “comprehensive construction” after reviewing state laws and regulations, and the District of Columbia court concluded that only that “comprehensiveness” must justify complying with the equal-protection clause, the Court of Appeals decided that the law that was subject to the constitutional protections (see ante, at 2) should not be affected by federal
The EEOC has the power to create or rescind this law. The federal code sets the conditions to do so, but many states can be set in other jurisdictions to comply, such as the states of Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, or Utah. Each of these jurisdictions has the power to overturn the law they believe is unconstitutional, but any state that votes to enact a law will always be subject to federal prosecution.
The only real recourse that the EEUC is going to have to enact this law is for Congress to pass a bill authorizing it. The Obama administration’s role and willingness to act in this event could determine whether or not they pass this law. One thing is for sure: there will be no repercussions from the executive branch. Whether legislators do pass the bill is irrelevant; it must be done.
If the American people take the initiative to act to protect the rights of transgender workers and the environment, the EEOC will follow.
The EEOC’s Efforts Are Going to Be Pushed Out of the Washington Legislative Chamber, Yet Again
The EEOC and many of the other federal agencies involved in the lawsuit against the oil company TransCanada are not going away. They just need to move on. Federal agencies may be reluctant to go after trans employees, but it could happen.
Transgender workers in various industries will continue to be able to apply to serve in certain jobs and continue coming forward and demanding the right to serve without consequence. In addition, states and communities will have the resources
The EEOC’s attitude toward sexual harassment under the new law is that it’s a problem to be solved, but it can hardly be expected that any other employment can resolve the same issues. This is evident from the actions of the EEOC and all other federal agencies.
Criminalization of Sexual Harassment under the ACA is a Big Bad Deal
There’s no doubt that discrimination is extremely egregious. Employers and the federal government must protect the rights of everyone. It is up to Congress and the U.S. Congress to act on the needs of both employees and employers to make this happen so that the health care of every American is protected.
The law criminalizes sexual harassment and the Department of Justice, while the Department of Education is responsible for protecting student sexual assault information. These two issues could be at the core of the lawsuit by the EEOC and all other federal agencies.
While the lawsuit is complicated, it’s also a good start to what can be a very costly phase of the process for the EEOC, if not the entire government. This is particularly concerning, since the EEOC’s goal is to enforce its law, but it’s difficult to believe that the other federal agencies as well could do the same. The EEUC, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Office of Civil Rights are working under multiple direction. All of these agencies must be involved in implementing the law with input from all stakeholders to ensure that we make sure the EEOC’s guidance to its employees is followed and upheld. In all cases, this means taking steps that undermine this law that protects all employees, and makes it very difficult for these agencies to make any real impact on the national safety of any kind of worker at all.
The EEOC’s decision
The Court of Appeals concluded that EEOC compliance with state laws and regulations is important, and that “most states are subject to the federal Civil Rights Act” — a statute that the Court defined as “the federal act of discriminating based on race or national origin against any person or group, or on any class of persons or groups.” The Court concluded (para. 19) that “State law does not extend the rights under its constitution” — even if those rights were subject to federal constitutional protection. Indeed, the Federalist 391 U. S., at 434-415 (emphasis added).
An example from the District of Columbia
The plaintiff in one case argued that a state law, statute, or regulation violated the Equal Protection Clause, but the Equal Protection Clause required the Attorney General to be present in “certain places, by lawful means, only in a “comprehensive manner,” meaning, by an employee’s “conspicuous” efforts to make sure other citizens were protected. The law’s existence was found to violate the Equal Protection Clause. See EEOC v. Maryland, 395 U.S., at 467, n. 6 (1969); see also H.R. Civ. Proc. § 1201b(e) (1972) (“The Secretary of State may by rule promulgate, at any time, a local ordinance that establishes a specific form of protection for the equal protected cause, from interstate mobility”); B.C. Civil Service Comm’n v. Justice of the Community, 501 C. 3d 489, 460 (1991) (plurality opinion). Similarly, in Texas v. Kowalczyk, 443 U. S. 706, 711 (1979), the Supreme Court held that an application of the Equal Protection Clause “continues to protect any individual, regardless of race, color, religion, or sex, regardless of any other factor.” Id., at 726-730 (quoting Commonwealth v. Texas, 413 U. S. 653, 673 (1973)). Such exceptions are generally permissible in such cases. H.R. Civ. Proc. § 1201a(g) (1986), which is cited in D.C. Conf. &c. v. Ohio, 388 U. S. 547 et seq., 904 (1967).
We have already noted that a state regulation does not fall into the “applies to that specific class of persons” category, i.e., a statute that “does not extend the rights under a particular statute, statute, regulation, or regulation to everyone.” See H.R. Civ. Proc. § 1201a(b)(9) (1983)(citing H.R. Civ. Proc. §§ 1401-1401, (1991)), n. 10. However, when the EEOC decided that the EEOC did not need to be present in all areas of “comprehensive construction” after reviewing state laws and regulations, and the District of Columbia court concluded that only that “comprehensiveness” must justify complying with the equal-protection clause, the Court of Appeals decided that the law that was subject to the constitutional protections (see ante, at 2) should not be affected by federal
The EEOC has the power to create or rescind this law. The federal code sets the conditions to do so, but many states can be set in other jurisdictions to comply, such as the states of Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, or Utah. Each of these jurisdictions has the power to overturn the law they believe is unconstitutional, but any state that votes to enact a law will always be subject to federal prosecution.
The only real recourse that the EEUC is going to have to enact this law is for Congress to pass a bill authorizing it. The Obama administration’s role and willingness to act in this event could determine whether or not they pass this law. One thing is for sure: there will be no repercussions from the executive branch. Whether legislators do pass the bill is irrelevant; it must be done.
If the American people take the initiative to act to protect the rights of transgender workers and the environment, the EEOC will follow.
The EEOC’s Efforts Are Going to Be Pushed Out of the Washington Legislative Chamber, Yet Again
The EEOC and many of the other federal agencies involved in the lawsuit against the oil company TransCanada are not going away. They just need to move on. Federal agencies may be reluctant to go after trans employees, but it could happen.
Transgender workers in various industries will continue to be able to apply to serve in certain jobs and continue coming forward and demanding the right to serve without consequence. In addition, states and communities will have the resources