Human Resource Problems

In addition to decrease the executive's compensation, the association warned him that any further chances could result in his termination. Thereafter, some other female employee complained that the executive had attempted to kiss her. After the company's probe confirmed the alleged kiss, the company terminated the executive's employment (Parliman & Kelly, 1995).

The Benefits committal at Quaker Oats determined that, because the executive's employment termination was for arrant(a) mis have a bun in the oven, he was non eligible for severance benefits under the cost of the company retirement plan. The executive, however, argued that his latest misconduct was not competent to give rise to an actionable claim for sexual badgering under federal official law. Further, he contended, the company could not pad a policy with regard to sexual molestation that was to a greater extent stringent than federal law. Therefore, he asked the court to conclude that his conduct did not justify the denial of severance benefits (Parliman & Kelly, 1995).

The United States ordinal set Court of Appeal reviewed the executive's conduct within the mount of sexual harassment case law and concluded that it was not sufficiently strict or pervasive to violate federal law. Significantly, however, the court also recognized that the employer was free to apply a stricter policy against sexual harassment than that demand

Following the alternative course of action opted for by miller Brewing, Smith, and scoop up, Miller was triumphful in getting Mackenzie out of the company. Considering the success Mackenzie had in the courtroom, however, it is difficult to contend that the strategy was a sure-fire one. Had the company opted to hold a formal investigation of Best's complaint, it possible would have reached the same conclusion as that reached by the jury. Thus, the company would still have to contend with Mackenzie on the payroll. Miller went through several downsizing programs at the time of this incident, and likely was attempting to scratch ways of terminating management employees without incurring financial liability.

This same motivating likely was at play in the company's decision not to inform Mackenzie that his positions had been lowered by one grade-level.

The Seventh Circuit Court ruled that the fact that Quaker Oats interpreted its policy in a manner more stringent than required by federal law was justified in demoralise of the company's purpose. The company's purpose in this case, as identified by the Court, was to take incidents of sexual harassment before they evolve into more severe situations, wherein the company would become liable to a federal guinea pig against the company (Parliman & Kelly, 1995).

Patricia Best could have raised the sexual harassment issue at the time of the conversation she had with Mackenzie about the Seinfeld program. Instead, she meshed in conversations with others in the office area about the program. She and then took vacation time for a honeymoon. It was after she returned that she reported the incident to Smith, who supposedly told her that they had the option of (1) speaking to Mackenzie herself, (2) having Smith speak to Mackenzie, or (3) filing a formal complaint. Best opted to speak to Mackenzie herself. During the meeting, Best reported to Smith that Mackenzie apologized but expressed surprise that she was offend because of her con
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.