Evaluate the conduct of Peter Lewiston against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment.Should the intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities? Explain.

HR Case Assignment Sexual Harassment

June 7, 2008. On the first day of summer school, Gilbury returned to school to find a dozen roses and a card from Lewiston. The card read, “Please for- give me for thinking you could like me. I played the big fool. Yours always, P.L.” Later in the day Lewis- ton asked Gilbury to lunch. She replied, “It’s been a long time since anyone sent me roses, but I can’t go to lunch. We need to remain just friends.” Gilbury told another teacher that she was uncomfortable about receiving the roses and card and that Lewiston would not leave her alone. She expressed concern that Lewiston might get “more romantic” with her.
June 8, 2008. Gilbury arrived at school to find another card from Lewiston. Inside was a handwritten note that read, “I hope you can someday return my affections for you. I need you so much.” Later in the day, Lewiston again asked her to lunch, and she declined, saying, “I’m a happily married woman.” At the close of the school day, when Gilbury went to her car, Lewiston suddenly appeared. He asked to explain

himself but Gilbury became agitated and shouted, “I have to leave right now.” Lewiston reached inside the car, supposedly to pat her shoulder, but touched her head instead. She believed he meant to stroke her hair. He stated that he was only trying to calm her down. She drove away, very upset.
Questions:
1. Evaluate the conduct of Peter Lewiston against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment.
2. Should the intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities? Explain.

© 2020 Essaylane.com. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer: for assistance purposes only. These custom papers should be used with proper reference.