Misplaced Affections: Discharge for Sexual Harassment Solution There are two major types of sexual harassment that the EEOC recognizes. The main focus of the Case Study is going to be on their second type of harassment: hostile environment can occur when unwelcome sexual conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (EEOC. 2011) Based on the allegations brought by Ms. Beverly Gilbury, the relationship started out as a harmless crush, but escalated to an unwanted infatuation. Until Mr. Lewiston actually laid his hand on her, there was nothing wrong with how he pursued her. There is nothing wrong with love notes and flowers. Just because someone is infatuated, does not mean there is a sexual harassment case. Sexual Harassment is a serious crime as it is a willing sexual advance from one person to another. There are two forms, as defined by EEOC, quid pro quo that is when any sexual conduct is used to gain employment whether it is submission or rejection and hostile environment is any sexual conduct that has a purpose or effect of unreasonable interfering job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, offensive environment (Bohlander, 2007, p. 112). In this case, I saw there was sexual harassment by creating a hostile environment for Mrs. Beverly Gilbury by Mr. Peter Lewiston. Mr. Lewiston created this environment by spending more time at her classroom, sending flowers, letters and appearing at her car. Mrs. Gilbury frequently told Mr. Lewiston that they were friends. The initial injection for sexual harassment by the victim is valid but I .

1. Misplaced Affections: Discharge for Sexual Harassment
Solution
There are two major types of sexual harassment that the EEOC recognizes. The main focus of
the Case Study is going to be on their second type of harassment: hostile environment can occur
when unwelcome sexual conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job
performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (EEOC.
2011) Based on the allegations brought by Ms. Beverly Gilbury, the relationship started out as a
harmless crush, but escalated to an unwanted infatuation. Until Mr. Lewiston actually laid his
hand on her, there was nothing wrong with how he pursued her. There is nothing wrong with
love notes and flowers. Just because someone is infatuated, does not mean there is a sexual
harassment case.
Sexual Harassment is a serious crime as it is a willing sexual advance from one person to
another. There are two forms, as defined by EEOC, quid pro quo that is when any sexual conduct
is used to gain employment whether it is submission or rejection and hostile environment is any
sexual conduct that has a purpose or effect of unreasonable interfering job performance or
creating an intimidating, hostile, offensive environment (Bohlander, 2007, p. 112). In this case, I
saw there was sexual harassment by creating a hostile environment for Mrs. Beverly Gilbury by
Mr. Peter Lewiston. Mr. Lewiston created this environment by spending more time at her
classroom, sending flowers, letters and appearing at her car. Mrs. Gilbury frequently told Mr.
Lewiston that they were friends. The initial injection for sexual harassment by the victim is valid
but I