Sexual Harassment
Kim Schulte
Clarify what you mean by its having become a major problem in 80's. Was it not a problem before, or was it just finally being recognized as a problem with the upswing of the women's rights movement of the 60s and 70s? I.e. if it's the fastest growing area of employee complaint, are the complaints being filed today a direct result of the success of other plaintiffs? You might make the distinction between Quid pro Quo being an active form of harassment and HWE being a passive form. What guidelines have been established for proving either? Clarify your thesis--training workshops like you suggest have been implemented in greater frequency every year since the 80's. That being the case, one would expect litigation to decrease, not increase. Is it possible that the training sessions are doing more to convince women they have a case against the slightest comment than otherwise? How can we resolve this dilemma? To what extent should we go in reorganizing all the human resource departments of every major corporation? Can such a thing be legislated without infringing upon the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Dept. of Commerce? How globally recognized is this problem? Do other countries not have the same problems as us do to their unwillingness to sponsor litigation? When something can't be sued for, do occurrences happen more, or do complaints happen less out of fear of corporate retaliation. There's a lot of questions here. Develop this along those lines.
Okay, here's where you clarify your difference between active and passive sexual harassment. Move the reference to it out of the intro as you've got lots of other information you can fill the background with, and put it down here (Quid pro quo and HWE). What's the significance of there being such a distinction? Does this mean that anyone can sue for anything? If an employer smiles and winks at his employees, for instance, is the harassment measured by his intent or by how his actions are received? Can quid pro quo be implied by the employer in the same way it can be demanded? If no implication is intended, can the employee still sue for what he or she feels is an intention? Develop it along those lines.
In the first case, what if the employer fires a woman who is extremely attractive in order to avoid there being a sexually charged work atmosphere? Does the fired employee has a right to sue? The second case sounds ambiguous--how can the employer prove that the employee did not take advantage of the sexual harassment policy to redress the problem? Give me an example. Customer's managers? That last sentence is awkwardly put--simplify it along the lines of parallel structure for each element. What is the significance of a Zero Tolerance policy in decreasing the number of lawsuits. In your intro, you stated that lawsuits are increasing dramatically. How effective is this program?
Women in Anheuser-Busch do not get discriminated against? Clarify what you mean? Are you talking about the difference between labor that is not seen by the public and labor that is seen by the public? Those with a high public profile might actually be safer than those without. Assembly line labor is probably more susceptible to sexual harassment because it's in a controlled, stable, monotonous environment. Argue this. You seem to place the burden of being sexually harassed squarely on the shoulders of the woman--are the men not responsible for controlling their actions around a beautiful woman who wears tight clothing and displays cleavage? If that's distracting, isn't it rather the fault of the men who allow themselves to get distracted? If a company bans such clothing for its female employees in accordance with providing reasonable care, does it not infringe upon the rights of those employees to dress freely but professionally in whatever the new businesswoman's fashion is? Finally, is it the woman's responsibility to sterilize her gender in order to succeed in a workplace filled with men who are not asked to emasculate themselves? It seems that your solution slaps a band-aid on the problem and does not address the central issue of gender differences.
In confronting innocent flirtations with such extreme methods, isn't the woman setting herself up as an office pariah?--joyless, friendless, and unapproachable? Shouldn't office relationships be governed on the same grounds as social relationships, where if someone is bothering someone else in a sexually demanding way the person being bothered can just tell them to get lost? Or, does the nature of an office environment, being that there is no escape into the larger world outside that confinement, preclude a woman's being able to just walk away from an unwanted advance? Argue this. Central to the point of this paragraph is what makes an approach by a member of the opposite sex in an office different from his approach in a bar or at a park or some other social milieu.
Try not to use the word "probably"--be assertive in your arguments. So the accused is suspended pending further investigation based entirely on the merit of his being accused? Clarify that--does he have a right to sue for false accusations once he's found in the clear? If a woman who is incredibly attractive starts accusing a lot of her co-workers of coming on to her, can she be fired herself for creating what must obviously be a sexually charged work environment? How easy is it to prove sexual harassment in Dierberg's? Does there have to be a witness? How does this parallel to the larger corporate world?
The lack of miscommunication? Clarify. How long has this sexual harassment workshop firm been in business? Have their efforts decreased the number of suits in businesses they've entered? Why, again, is litigation still on the increase? What's the difference between the way companies were coping with it and the way that they're coping with it now? Is it reflective of a change in attitude on the part of the company, that they're now taking this issue seriously?
Don't repeat your intro paragraph--there's no reason to rehash these ideas that you've already discussed thoroughly throughout your paper. Definitely do not summarize the remainder of your ideas. They've already been voiced, so there's no need to repeat them. Focus here on the impact this issue has on the corporate world and how it is changing intraoffice relationships and leveling the disparity between the genders in terms of power relationships.