Sexual harassment and discrimination are key vices that have brewed controversy in the public domain. The two are somewhat related making them difficult to differentiate. It is prudent to look keenly at their legal definitions in order to understand what they portend (Zaremba, 2010). Sexual harassment is legally defined as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment” (Zaremba, 2010). Discrimination, on the other hand, entails the “unequal treatment of persons, for a reason that has nothing to do with legal rights or ability” (Shaw, 2000). These definitions are integral for the public perception in demystifying the two vices in various situations. A public informed on these legal definitions can easily analyze reports of sexual harassment and discrimination case without resulting to defaming or assassinating the perpetrators and victims characters (Zaremba, 2010).In order to comprehend how controversial the two terms are, this paper will dwell on Lorene Schaefer General Electric discrimination case from the summer of 2005 and the ESPN sexual harassment case involving Harold Reynolds in 2006. These two will form the basis of the analysis of the David Letterman sexual misconduct matter in 2009. Was is it a form of harassment or discrimination?
The Lorene Schaefer General Electric discrimination case was centered on the discrimination against female employees in remuneration and promotions. The case was filed by Lorene Schaefer sought class action from the courts in order to enjoin other female entry level executives at General Electric. The plaintiff further questioned the criteria employed by the company at arriving at promotions and pay packages. Many of her male peers were promoted to senior executive positions as she still remained in the lower executive level despite being equally qualified. The case can be said to be an act gender discrimination perpetuated by General Electric as an employer. The pay and promotional practices offered by the company were biased against the female employees.
The next case, ESPN-Harold Reynolds 2006 sexual harassment case, dwells on the actions of a lawsuit filed by Harold Reynolds against the ESPN for wrongful termination on accusations of sexual misconduct (Zaremba, 2010). Reynolds six-year contract with ESPN was terminated after only four months of working with the sports network. The network based its decision on five complaints lodged by young women about the anchor’s sexual behavior. Reynolds, on the other hand, believed the network misunderstood his intentions and cited in his lawsuit that the firing was racially instigated. He noted that his white colleagues had several instances participated in sexual harassment and drunken acts but were not dismissed. Reynolds said there was only one complaint lodged by a female intern after hugging her. This case brings forth a distinction in the blurry line between sexual harassment and discrimination. The sexual harassment was cited in this case as a sexual bias expressed through interpersonal relations at the workplace (ESPN). On the other hand, the rejoinder complaint by Reynolds points out to a discrimination case where the ESPN (as an employer) fired him on the racial basis. In the former scenario, the vice was alleged to be on an interpersonal basis at the workplace while, in the latter, the employer implemented measures that were deemed as unfair and unequal treatment towards Harold Reynolds.
It is important to understand that sexual harassment falls under discrimination as a subset (Zaremba, 2010). The two have distinct definitions that have been illustrated through the analysis of the two preceding cases. In the light of the David Letterman sexual misconduct matter in 2009, the definitions will come in handy. The Letterman case centers on extortion and blackmail efforts by his CBS producer, Robert J. Halderman. Halderman is alleged to have asked for two million dollars from Letterman in order not to sell screenplay rights surrounding Letterman sexual relations with workmates. Did the alleged acts Letterman was involved in at the workplace amount to sexual harassment or discrimination? The term sexual harassment, as seen in the media, was tossed around with Halderman’s lawyer further alleging that it took place in this Letterman case. This brings to question legally speaking with the information known so far, whether Letterman’s actions constituted sexual harassment. Was the environment hostile for the alleged women who had relations with Letterman? Was the harassment quid pro quo? Were the relations consensual or otherwise unwelcome?
The environment at the CBS Corporation has not yet been established to be hostile in any way by the ladies purported to have had relations with Letterman. None of the Letterman sexual partners has come forward to indicate that she faced hostility in terms of unwelcome sexual conduct from Letterman. There is also no evidence linking Letterman to wielding quid pro quo harassment at the CBS studios. He never used his position to take an employment action such as firing or demotion against employees who were unwilling to engage in sexual escapades with him (Zaremba, 2010). There is no tangible evidence in the public domain that cites the ladies in question were coerced into having sexual affairs with Letterman. The New York post notes that one of the alleged victims joked about the sexual misconduct by citing that Letterman had promised that she was the only “woman he’d ever cheat on” (Celona,2009). This clearly signifies that no coercion was in play. The article further quotes the Late Night Show insiders saying “the show is one of the better places for a woman to workDave is not a groper” (Celona,2009).
References
Celona, L. (2009, October 5). Hate show for Letterman ex’s beau. New York Post. Retrieved from http://nypost.com/2009/10/05/hate-show-for-letterman-exs-beau/
Shaw, V. F. (2000). Coping with sexual harassment and gender bias. New York: Rosen Pub. Group.
Zaremba, A. J. (2010). Crisis communication: Theory and practice. Armonk, NY [u.a.: M.E. Sharpe.
