Claim

The main issue in this case is whether or non there is familiar harassment amounting to a violation of rubric cardinal grosbeak of the Civil Rights do work of 1964 . It is alleged by molly , an employee of tierce (3 ) years with Widgets that she was subject to sexual harassment during the lineage of her piece of work . On the other hand , Talbot , the person criminate , denies each involvement .

Widget fired Molly on the make that she abused her personal and sick leave amounting to desertion of her troth thus giving them just cause for the last of her employmentFrom these f cultivates , it mustiness be stated that Molly does non stimulate a mend Title VII is clear in that it punishes and makes unlawful all act of the employer that is discriminatory against an one-on-one 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 below 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 reasonableness for the dismissal of the employee . Although the ruling in Meritor Savings bevel v . Vinson allows for a to be d , the Supreme lawcourt rule that there are cer tain exceptions and not any act of sexual h! arassment is...If you want to get a complete essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper