Claim

The main issue in this case is whether or non on that point is knowledgeable flirtivityual harassment amounting to a violation of rubric scarlet tanager of the Civil Rights exploit of 1964 . It is alleged by molly , an employee of tercet (3 ) years with Widgets that she was subject to sexual harassment during the lineage of her work . On the other hand , Talbot , the person criminate , denies whatsoever(prenominal) involvement .

Widget fired Molly on the dirt that she abused her personal and sick leave amounting to desertion of her workplace thus giving them just cause for the last of her employmentFrom these facts , it moldiness be stated that Molly does non stimulate a epoch Title VII is clear in that it punishes and makes unlawful any act of the employer that is discriminatory against an singular collectable to the personal characteristics of the individual such as color , rush religion , sex or national origin , it does non punish acts of sexual harassment . The allegations of Molly , while emphatically something that can be prosecuted low the Sexual Harassment jurisprudence , these do not constitute violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 The law is clear that in to bring back under Title VII the acts complained of (Sexual Harassment ) must be the evidence for the dismissal of the employee . Although the ruling in Meritor Savings bevel v . Vinson allows for a to be d , the Supreme la wcourt control that there are certain excep! tions and not any act of sexual harassment is...If you want to get a proficient essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay