Employer Harrasment

Q: if a bunch of nude straight men were flaunting it in front of a group of young women, or Nuns they would likely feel harassed and it would have nothing to do with homosexuality. That's not what happened. Let's stick w/ what did happen. But isn't that the discussion? Aren't you saying that this was only occuring because these guys were gay? I think the same type of harassment charges would have been filed if it were women being harassed by straight men.

A: I (for one, at least) stand quite possibly corrected... and once more I'm stunned at legislative wording with such broad application and so little qualification. From the regulations governing enforcement: "Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment..." This could very well apply in a case where refusing direct orders can mean immediate termination (although I don't know the SDFD's policies and can't say if it does or not.) "An employer may also be responsible for the acts of non- employees,

with respect to sexual harassment of employees in the workplace, where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing these cases the Commission will consider the extent of the employer's control and any other legal responsibility which the employer may have with respect to the conduct of such non-employees." I'm pretty sure this wasn't intended to cover such a situation, but is perfectly well-worded for the purpose... ... though it depends to some extent on State and local law remedies being pursued first, according to the Act itself.