Sexual Harassment CaseThe definition of sexual harassment first appeared in America in the 1970s. In the middle of the 19th century, the American women’s movements focus more on the issue of sex. Under the influence of the women’s movement, the feminist jurisprudence arises at the historic moment, it is critical under the patriarchal discourse of legal system.
Many countries around the world build their own sexual harassment legislation are more or less affected by the American legislation. In China, the region of Hong Kong and Taiwan build their sexual harassment legislation earlier. Hong Kong established the sex discrimination ordinance to regulate sexual harassment behavior in 1995. Taiwan established the equal gender job act to use as the basis for regulating sexual harassment behavior, and formulated the special regulation of sexual harassment law on the prevention and control of the sexual harassment behavior. In mainland China has the protection of women’s rights prohibit sexual harassment behavior, but has yet to formulate special law system of regulating sexual harassment behavior.
Focus on the case of Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, the court gave an equitable judgment which protected minority people’s right and prevented the sexually hostile state expand in the working environment. Pornographic picture about nude women in which was decorated around working environment, and the situation that majority are male workers could bring the feeling of humiliation and pressure to the female workers. Male workers believed this kind of job is man’s job thus man occupy this workplace, and being the majority has the right to decide the working environment. Furthermore, it is a habitual sense which was built by historical issue. However, all the people should be created equal, necessarily including the entire employee. Robinson is a professional female worker who has already been hired, therefore her working ability was approved by the employer. No matter how
[Footnote 1] While we consider the role of the public to be the primary and primary means of achieving the goals of public governance, that public role was limited to ensuring the right of all workers to organize on a fairly equal basis. Indeed, as we have explained, a majority of women in the civil rights and labour movement agreed with the majority of men and those who worked with men in labor (see footnote 1)—even as a minority of black women, as well as as people of color, agreed with the “right of Black people and all white people to participate in all aspects of public life” (emphasis added) as well. As we have explained, the public was the primary place that women who were working with men, while other women were being exploited at all times by men. The fact that not all women were at that place was a factor that was significant and important in changing the context.
[Footnote 2] Thus, we find that, in the eyes of the majority, the minority women are not “equal” and are, therefore, “part of the problem” during public and private life (note 1). However, these views are at odds with the beliefs of our Court.
[Footnote 3] As a further step in addressing discriminatory and under-represented workplace environments we must consider whether it is possible to improve the status of minority women working in the workplace. Thus, before the majority considered whether the state should intervene, we concluded that such an intervention would have a disproportionate effect on minorities, who would be forced to contend with discrimination and harassment by women who may have previous histories of previous discrimination such as poverty, or sexual harassment. Thus, we found that the state and the majority did not have a legal duty to intervene when it comes to controlling the workplace, even if the state could have intervened to prevent this or other harmful workplace conditions from being brought about. It seems at least a bit more likely our Court might be surprised to see the state enact such a step because, given that the majority did not intervene to protect minority women working in all workplaces, the State would probably not have intervened on the basis of its public policy. Even if it was a legal principle, it would follow that a state and the majority could intervene in the interests of one’s work.
[Footnote 4] Moreover, we should address racial inequities in the working environment. As discussed above, the civil rights movement helped create the conditions at which white people were excluded from the same social justice struggle at the same places as black people. In addition both men and women worked in segregated employment. Therefore, the fact that many black people from all walks of life were not allowed to go to work outside of segregation, even in the workplace, did not in or of itself undermine the civil rights movement or racial justice. The fact that many others from white communities, workers from black community, non-whites, and other minorities were excluded from the same situations and did not seek jobs in the same environments, even when they had similar experiences, indicates that even in situations like the United States where it is still illegal for men to work outside of segregation, racial gaps exist and, as a consequence, the racial justice crisis is still facing communities such as Mississippi, California, and Louisiana now.
[Footnote 5] If the court considers the fact that women were not included in the workers’ struggle to win their rights through race equality, it could very well say that the state of the case is unconstitutional.
[Footnote 6] We conclude that the state of Florida does not have a legal duty