Inmy opinion, Stuart is in danger of sexual harassment liability as perthe case in question. Sexual harassment is prohibited by Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act. It covers both physical and verbal conductincluding call for sexual favors and sexual advances to a person.Sexual harassment has been found to create a working environment thatis hostile, intimidating, as well as offensive. In this case, Myrnaconsiders Simon’s behavior to be sexually harassing to her. As aresult, she took the necessary step by telling Stuart, her boss,about the issue expecting him to tackle the problem. Certainly, Myrnawas uncomfortable about Simon’s behavior and this amounts it assexual harassment. From the case, Stuart did not look into the matterpromptly but rather he took a few weeks to do so. Besides, he justtold Simon to go slow on Myrna as he feared that he would loose himas a frequent customer. He also failed to relieve Myrna’sduty of waiting upon Simon as she had requested. Employers have aduty of maintaining work environments that are not characterized bysexual harassment. It is their legal responsibility which not onlyprevents lawsuits by employees, but also increases staff morale andproductivity.
Fromthe responses provided regarding the case in question, the writershave offered their opinion that Stuart is in danger of sexualharassment liability. His failure to take prompt and necessary actionconcerning the sexual harassment behavior is what makes him liable.As argued therefore, Myrna has the right to report to the EEOCconcerning the matter as it is dangerous for her to ignore the issueand stay in a workplace where she is not comfortable.