The supervisor needs to consider very carefully what he and the company value most. If profit is valued then the supervisor must proceed with caution. Punishing/suspending the two male employees could affect the bottom line. If they become disgruntled they may show their unhappiness by being less productive or leaving the company. They could even take it as far as to convince other employees that they are being treated unfairly, which in turn could cause the other employees to become disgruntled. If the two men decide to be less productive, leave the company, or convince other employees to be less productive then the company will become less productive as a whole and will most likely become less profitable. However, if the supervisor does nothing Barbara could sue the company for sexual harassment which, even if she doesn’t win, would cost the company a great deal of time and money.
The supervisor must also proceed with caution should he and the company value a positive work environment. The supervisor must handle the situation so that the appearance of “taking sides” is not given. He will need to take the values of Barbara and the values of the male employees and juggle them so that it appears that both sides are being treated fairly.
In order to say that this is not a hostile work environment a few assumptions need to be made. The first assumption is that the photographs and calendars were already hanging on the walls when Barbara was hired. The second assumption is that Barbara had no trouble with the male coworkers prior to her approaching the supervisor about the photographs being offensive. If these assumptions are not made it changes the situation in its entirety. If the photographs and calendars were placed on the walls after Barbara was hired and hostile comments and situations took place prior to the removal of the photographs then it is very possible, and highly likely, that a hostile work environment existed.
This situation is not a hostile work environment because according to our discussion in class five criteria must be met for a situation to be considered hostile. The five criteria according to Epstein are: (1) the harassment must be gender-based, (2) the employer or its agent must perpetuate or condone the harassment, (3) the harassment must be severe or pervasive, (4) the harassment must be unwelcome to its target, and (5) the harassment must create a subjectively and objectively hostile work environment. Although Barbara’s situation meets requirements 1, 4, and 5 it does not meet requirements 2 and 3. Therefore because her situation does not meet all five requirements it is not considered a hostile work environment.
According to the case when Barbara approached her supervisor and informed him that the photographs on the wall offended her, his reaction was to immediately remove all of the offensive materials. This action shows that criteria 2 – the employer or its agent must perpetuate or condone the harassment – is not met. The text also states that a “hostile work environment occurs when the overall workplace environment is so pervaded with sexual harassment and intimidation that it creates an unfair barrier for women in the workplace” (page 261). Because Barbara was able to fulfill her duties while the photographs remained on the walls shows that there was no unfair barrier created.
The offensive conversation between the two male employees only occurred once – the day after the provocative photographs and calendars were removed. Therefore it is hard to prove that criteria 3 – the harassment is severe or pervasive – has been met, or that it created a barrier and prevented her from fulfilling her duties. The conversation most likely took place because the men were angry that Barbara went to the supervisor and the photographs were removed.
As far as putting the two men on probation, in my opinion, the supervisor made the correct decision in “sitting on the idea”. He confronted the men about the situation and listened to their side. Chances are the men were merely angry about having their photographs and calendars taken down. The supervisor should warn the men that comments of that nature do not belong in the workplace and that future comments of that nature will not be tolerated. He should let them know that, even though they were speaking to one another, if comments are spoken out loud and can be heard by others the comments had best be fit to be heard by all. Should any future conversation of an inappropriate nature be overheard, then the men should be reprimanded and put on probation.
Because the supervisor removed the photographs and calendars it would be very difficult to prove sexual harassment or that the work environment was hostile. Of course there are those that would disagree. It could be argued that allowing the provocative photographs to be displayed in the first place made the work environment hostile and opened the doors to some form of sexual harassment. It is most likely true that the photographs were offensive and probably not only offensive to Barbara but other employees as well. However, freedom of expression is one right that we do possess in this country. Unless the pictures were considered to be pornographic in nature the men should have been given a place to display them. It can be argued that any person can find any picture/photograph offensive no matter the nature of it. For example, if someone were of the Buddhist religion and there was a picture of Jesus hanging on the wall, one could assume it would offend that person. If it is the case that all pictures that someone could find offensive be removed then all wall hangings of all natures should be taken down. Unless written guidelines describing what is and is not acceptable exist then the photographs did not create a hostile environment
It could also be argued that the content of the conversation between the two male employees creates a work environment that is hostile. The conversation was gender-based and it was unwelcome to its target (Barbara). I don’t disagree with these facts, however this only meets two of the five criteria (criteria 1 and 4) that must be met and the conversation was most likely generated out of anger. The men were merely looking for someone to blame and because Barbara was the one to go to the supervisor she was the one they blamed. As far as we can tell this was the male employee’s first offense and one single isolated event doesn’t prove sexual harassment or a hostile work environment.
As stated earlier the photographs and calendars were probably offensive in nature. It is also possible that they offended other employees, even male employees. With that in mind, although they were inappropriate and offensive, a hostile work environment did not exist because of the photographs and calendars. Even after the offensive material was removed and the two make employee made inappropriate comments, a hostile work environment did not exist. Sexual harassment would be hard to prove, the supervisor no the company perpetuated or condoned the behavior and the harassment was neither severe nor pervasive. The overall workplace was not pervaded with sexual harassment and Barbara was not hindered from doing her job and performing her duties.
