Claim

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

Widget fired Molly on the ground that she abused her personal and sick leave amounting to desertion of her employment thus giving them just cause for the last of her employmentFrom these facts , it must be stated that Molly does non stimulate a While Title VII is clear in that it punishes and makes unlawful any act of the employer that is discriminatory against an individual collectable to the personal characteristics of the individual such as color , rush religion , sex or national origin , it does not 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 grounds for the dismissal of the employee . Although the ruling in Meritor Savings bevel v . Vinson allows for a to be d , the Supreme lawcourt ruled that there are certain exceptions and not any act of sexual harassment is...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

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