on on the fact that Ms. Parker embarrassed him, he is clearly in violation of part 2 of section 1604.11(a) of the EEOC Compliance Manual. This section states that no employment decision may have any sexual favors implied. Randy Louvenberger’s earlier actions created a hostile environment for Susan Parker, and that is his primary violation of laws against sexual harassment. In the case of Henson vs. City of Dundee and Rogers vs. EEOC, the court ruled that the manager was guilty of sexual harassment even though the victim seemed to play along with the sexually inappropriate jokes. In these two cases, each victim claimed that the manager created a hostile environment with his comments, and that environment greatly impaired their ability to work in the office. Although Susan Parker tolerated the verbal sexual harassment for a month before saying anything, Randy Louvenberger was still creating a hostile environment for other employees. Verbal abuse ceases to be sexual harassment only when it “…neither discriminates on the basis of sex nor is sexual in nature.” (EEOC Compliance Manual)Today, most companies treat sexual harassment as a serious act that demands actions, therefore, they often establish guidelines on how to avoid and handle sexual harassment. However, some companies still do not appear to have sexual harassment regulations or at least not publicly accessible ones. One of these companies is Firestone. It seems as though information about the recent tire recall is the only topic that one can access on it’s website or through emails. Nevertheless, an examination of the sexual harassment policies of other companies provides a basis for recommendations. EDS, Electronic Data Systems, serves as a good model in considering which rules are worth implementation. Kevin McFarling, Client Delivery Executive, sums up his company’s attitude toward sexual harassment: “Sexual harassment is no...
