Current Topic Summary

Student’s name
Instructor’s name
Business Law
Date
Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment has been common especially in the just concluded US elections. Democrats had previously reported of Trump’s sexual harassment in public, amid similar claims made against Bill Clinton. The severity of the issue had reduced Trump’s popularity in recent polls, indicating the nation’s distaste of the issue. Today, statistics suggest that even men face sexual harassment cases, particularly in the workplace. The new findings are neither startling since globalization has led to the degradation of cultures in the society. The US-based Commission of Equal Employment Opportunity has indicated that it receives more than 13,000 complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace. Interestingly, men claimed that more than 50% of their harassers were female, illustrating the changing traits between genders as opposed to occurrences in the past. States have been keen to enact punitive laws against the vice to discourage the vice in their states. California, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Colorado are some of the states which have adopted extremely punitive laws against sexual harassment in the USA (Hunt 11). The essay evaluates the application of sexual harassment laws in California, especially considering the USA Gymnast v. Karolyis sexual harassment case.
USA Gymnast v. Karolyis
The gymnast claims that Dr. Larry Nassar sexually harassed gymnasts between 2006 and 2011. The gymnast alleges that Bela and Martha Karolyi ignored the claims and left the doctor unsupervised even after allegations were made against the physician.

The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles, the plaintiff’s current residence, against USA gymnastics, a facility where the Karolyis trained gymnasts. The complainant has revealed that the popular couples occasionally scratched the athletes, entrenched an intimidating environment and often denied children food. The infectious environment allowed Nassar to harass athletes unperturbed sexually. However, the case took a twist when USA Gymnastics declined to have been aware of the tragic events and immediately sacked the doctor after the athletes raised their concerns while also forwarding incriminating data to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). The plaintiff was at the time a minor and a member of the US gymnasts. However, Michigan’s attorney general claimed that the justice department would review the case at the request of the doctor’s former workstation, Michigan state university. Martha had resigned as the nation’s team leader immediately after the Rio Olympics. The plaintiff argues that the doctor repeatedly sexually harassed athletes with the full knowledge of the Karolyis, claims which the trainers vehemently deny.
Laws against Sexual Harassment in California
Employees prefer to file cases against sexual harassment using the state’s law, which is punitive and victim-friendly, unlike the federal statutes. The state has enacted FEHA (an Act on Fair Employment and Housing) that expressly bans sexual harassment in the state. Similarly, the California constitution outlaws harassment of workers based on their gender, though California residents rarely use it in filing cases of sexual harassment. Perceptively, court precedents have established a quid pro quo sexual aggravation occurs when a senior employee or employers threaten or offers promotion to a worker in exchange for sex. The courts have recently agreed that discussing sexual acts, sexual proposition and commentary about sexual uses of a person’s body amounts to sexual harassment. Similarly, courts have decided that upon proving of an existence of a hostile environment, perpetrators can repeatedly sexually harass the employees. The courts have recently migrated to victim standard, illustrating the victim must satisfactorily prove to be sexually assaulted, due to the differences in culture, thus preference of the victim’s accounts. Victims have always narrated instances where the perpetrators repeatedly rubbed their thighs, stroked their genital, and indecently stroking the worker’s bust or bum.
Provisions of FEHA
The provisions of FEHA adequately express their concerns about sexual harassment, especially for protected genders in the society. The provisions demonstrate that offensive remarks, jokes, and insults made against either men or women, construed to be sexually abusive, amounts to sexual harassment. Furthermore, the judges have ruled that the provision also engulfs demeaning sexist comments are classified as harassment. The courts have in the past sentenced perpetrators that continuously used offensive words to demean the victims. Implicitly asking for sex, particularly between supervisors illustrates that the junior workers time at the job is dependent on sex, making such advances illegal. Unlawful sexual advances and pervasive comments made against a victim are enough evidence to prove the perpetrators’ guilt especially using the victim’s standards (Bercovici 183). Moreover, the Act classifies unwelcome distribution of offensive pictures directed to the victim or expressed of a particular gender amounts to harassment. The provision only proves harassment when the distribution is unwanted of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment is expressly defined to imply harassing people because of their sex and pregnant women harassment. However, under quid pro quo, the victim must prove the existence of an offer that is sexually motivated. The law protects all genders from harassment, though for one to use the FEHA legislation, one must also show the existence of a working relationship with the perpetrator. Unaffiliated workers can bring a claim under the Unruh Civil Rights legislations that forbid enterprises from discriminating people based on gender.
Punishment
The law provides that the perpetrators are responsible for their actions and may be construed to pay damages to the victims. Individuals fitting the description of the FEHA may be forced to pay their victims in particular instances. The legislation ropes in individuals or enterprises employing more than five employees and undertaking an action prohibited by law. Workers, senior employees and business owners can be liable for sexual harassment or by helping perpetrators through ignorance or threats to the victims. The Karolyis and USA Gymnastics are accused in the case because of failing to act on the doctor’s actions illegal under the Act’s provisions. The Act adequately differentiates between discrimination and harassment, implying sex discrimination requires managerial capacity while bullying involves both senior and coworkers. The punitive measures have forced businesses to regularly train their workers, pin posters illustrating the firm’s displeasure to sexual harassment and availing a harassment worksheet detailing where to report the crime and actions included as harassment.
Previous cases at the state and federal level reveal that offenders have been forced to pay for the cost of the case, compensate for the victim’s loss of the job, medical damages, emotional dysfunctions, and relief injunctions. The punitive measures act as a deterrent against committing such crimes at the workplace. Similarly, victims can sue under the federal Civil Rights Act or the Criminal Code; both satisfactorily use equity to give justice to both sides. Conclusively, state and federal legislations have adequately ensured that the courts can properly dispense on the cases. Precedents and previous case laws have assured victims for equitable resolution of their cases.

Works Cited
Bercovici, Jennifer. “Workplace Romance and Sexual Favoritism: Creating a Dialogue between
Social Science and the Law of Sexual Harassment, The.” S. Cal. Interdisc. LJ 16 (2006):
183. Print.
Hunt, Jerome. A State-by-State Examination of Nondiscrimination Laws and Policies: State
Nondiscrimination Policies Fill the Void but Federal Protections Are Still Needed.
Center for American Progress, 2012. Print.