[ad_1]
The behavioral distortion caused by patriarchal insemination means that some men, when they have the absolute power to hire and fire an organization, think that they have the right to look for any kind of employee gratification. But very few complain of the indecent advances of such bosses. Because, jobs are rare and a complainant becomes more ignominious than the predator. The MeToo campaign seems to be an alternative to the notoriously complicated and tedious legal process for engaging a predator in the workplace.
But the process of naming and shaming chronic offenders through MeToo is legally uncertain because it is based on "your word against mine", which has no probative value in court. A justice system operates on the principles of natural justice – no man can be condemned unless he is offered a chance to explain himself. In addition, the justice system's theme is "Innocence until the court is found guilty by a court of law".
As the tidal wave of the Me-Too campaign continues to rise, we are forgetting another aspect of workplace sexual harassment, commonly known as "quid pro quo" harassment. In this, an employee tolerates the sexual or indecent advances of the employer or his supervisor to keep his job, obtain a salary increase, promotions and plum assignments. When accused of being a "predator", should not one allow the man to present as proof a "quid pro quo"? If the justice system gives anyone accused of murder the opportunity to prove their innocence, should not this be the case for those accused of seeking sexual gratification in the workplace? The setback of quid pro quo harassment also constitutes sexual harassment for other employees.
If an employer or a superior obtains the consent of the woman employee and offers her the best opportunities in the workplace, would that not mean depriving other women and men of the fruits of their hard work, diligence and Professional skills? Employees, both men and women, may be sexually discriminated at the workplace, in the hands of a same-sex employer or a superior. This was highlighted when in 2011, three men sued the Swedish National Police Academy for preferring to recruit women over men, even though they had surpassed female candidates for the first time. physical and written exams. The United States Supreme Court in Oncale vs Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. (1998) had acknowledged and stated that sexual discrimination could be caused by same-sex superiors.
However, he put an important proviso: "Whatever the means of proof chosen by the plaintiff, he must always prove that the behavior in question was not simply tainted with offensive sexual connotations, but was in fact one" discrimination based on sex "." The Commission for Equal Opportunities in Employment, which enforces federal civil rights laws, requires that a sexual harassment complaint be filed within 300 days of the alleged incident. (three months in India).
The commission reviews the complaint and is required to make a decision within six months – to resolve the problem, to allow the complainant to sue the employer or dismiss the complaint. If it is agreed, the complainant must move in the next three months. The process is tedious and the statistics describe a bleak scenario for those who bravely moved American courts complaining of sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Sandra Sperino (University of Cincinnati) and Suja Thomas (University of Illinois) reviewed more than 1,000 such cases in their book "Unequal: How American Courts undermine the law against discrimination" and have shed a new light on how judges see these cases. To reproduce some examples cited by them would not be out of place:
-In a case in Alabama, a woman claimed that her supervisor had told her that she only had a job because she "needed a skirt in the office. ". This same supervisor would have asked the woman to spend the night with him at a hotel and asked him "breath", constantly calling him "baby" and repeated several times the zipper of his pants in front of her, while usually referring to women as "slut", "slut" and "vagabond". The case was filed and filed in the North District Federal Court of Alabama in the United States. The referral was confirmed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal in 2007.
– A 911 telephone dispatcher for the city of San Mateo, California, said her colleague had touched her stomach and commented on how sweet and sexy she was. When she tried to push him away, the colleague forced her hand under her sweater and bra to caress her chest. He tried again, but stopped when another colleague entered the room. Two other women reported similar harassment from the same employee. The case was filed and filed in the Federal District Court North California (United States). The reference was confirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in 2000.
– In a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Chicago, a woman said her male supervisor had repeatedly asked her to go out with her, which she had refused. He often asked her about her personal life and told her how beautiful she was. He put his hand on his shoulder at least six times, placed placards "I love you" on his desk and tried to kiss him three times. The case was filed and filed in the Federal District Court North District of Illinois, United States. The dismissal was confirmed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 1993. The process is no less burdensome in India, a reason for the injured women to express their anger during the MeToo campaign to name and do shame on workplace predators. This would not, however, deprive the complainant and the accused of the right to seize a court, which would seek evidence for both the prosecution and the evidence of innocence.
YOU policy on the cover of #MeToo
