Case Analysis
Mary has worked for Bob for two years. About 6 months ago, Bob asked Mary out to dinner. They had a good time together and agreed that they had some real interests in common outside of work. The pair dated for two months. Mary initially liked Bob, but he was beginning to get annoying. He called her all the time, was very pushy about her seeing him, and wanted to control all aspects of her life; both at work and at home. Mary decided to call it off. When she told Bob that she did not want to see him personally anymore, he went crazy on her. He told her she would be sorry and that he would see to it that she regretted it.
Bob began to make life miserable for Mary at work. She suddenly started to get poor performance evaluations after two years of exemplary reviews. Even the managers above Bob were beginning to make comments about her poor attitude. Mary decided it was time to act. She was worried she would be fired, all because Bob wanted her to continue to date him. She loved her job and knew she did quality work. She made an appointment with the HR manager.
Using the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991, review the two basic types of sexual harassment (quid pro quoand hostile work environment) and assess the type of sexual harassment Mary is experiencing.
Evaluate the obligations of the HR manager once Mary reports her concerns. If the HR manager investigates and finds Mary is telling the truth, what should s/he do to handle the situation so that the company is not found complicit by the EEOC if further complaint is made?
Analyze the likelihood that Bob would be found guilty of sexually harassing Mary. If found in Mary’s favor, what options does the HR manager have to remedy the situation?
