Answer to Question 1Sexual harassment cannot be defined in terms of behaviour, but must make reference to the mental states of the perpetrator and victim. It is essentially a form of invasive communication that violates a victim's privacy rights. What is inappropriate in sexual harassment is not what is proposed, but the failure to show respect for the victim's rights.
- In reply to the claim that sexual harassment can be defined in terms of behaviour, Wall argues that identical behaviours must be distinguished on the basis of motive. A 'sensual' touch might be physically identical to a 'friendly' touch considered as a physical action, yet one might be inappropriate and the other not.
- In reply to the claim that sexual harassment necessarily involves a dominant group exploiting a subordinate group, Wall suggests that what seem to be cases of sexual harassment can occur where this is not the case, e.g. sexual harassment by employees of equal rank.
- In reply to the claim that the sexual harassment of women is a form of sex discrimination, Wall argues that, although many cases of sexual harassment will involve sex discrimination, sexual harassment does not invariably involve sex discrimination and thus should not be defined in terms of sex discrimination. A bisexual harasser might, for example, might indiscriminately threaten or proposition without giving consideration to the gender of his victims.
Answer to Question 2Drug use is information that is rightfully private and ... only in exceptional cases can an employer claim a right to know about such use.
Support your claim by replying to two arguments that are used in support of drug testing. The first is that, since drug use adversely affects employee productivity, the employer is justified in testing. The second is that, since drug use can be responsible for considerable harm, the employer is justified, in the interests of safety, in testing.
- In reply to the first argument, the authors argue that an employer is entitled not to a maximum or optimal level of performance, but rather to the effort sufficient to perform the job. If this is the case, the knowledge of drug use is irrelevant, since what is at issue is simply whether the employee is performing according to the expectations of the job. What is required contractually is meeting the normally expected levels of production or performing the tasks in the job-description adequately ... If one can do that under the influence of drugs, then on the grounds of job-performance, at least, drug use is rightfully private. If one cannot perform the task adequately, then the employee is not fulfilling the contract, and knowledge of the cause of the failure to perform is irrelevant.
- In reply to the second argument, the authors argue that prevention of harm could conceivably justify drug testing, but that there are strict limits on the instances that can be justified. Some of these limits are: (a) the job must have a clear and present potential to cause harm, (b) there must be probable cause to justify testing, (c) there must not exist other effective less intrusive means of preventing the harm, and (d) there must be checks and balances in place to prevent abuse by employers.
Sexual Activity of Heterosexual Couples
Genetics and Sexual Orientation
Vice President Richard M. Nixon and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev engage in a “kitchen debate” ...
William Kentridge, History of the Main Complaint.
Instructions for Completing the CMS-1500 (02/12) Claim Form Continued