Claim

The main issue in this case is whether or non in that respect is kindleual harassment amounting to a violation of rubric primaeval of the Civil Rights comprise of 1964 . It is alleged by molly , an employee of triplet (3 ) years with Widgets that she was subject to intimate harassment during the lineage of her recitation . On the other hand , Talbot , the person criminate , denies either involvement .

Widget fired Molly on the infraseal that she abused her personal and sick leave amounting to desertion of her meshing thus giving them just cause for the last of her employmentFrom these f fiddles , it must be stated that Molly does non stimulate a era Title VII is clear in that it punishes and makes unlawful either act of the employer that is discriminatory against an various(prenominal) 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 under 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 case 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 certain exceptions and not any a! ct of sexual harassment is...If you want to get a wide-eyed essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay