Criminology

The situation definitely constitutes a case of sexual harassment since it satisfies the definition of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Specifically, the EEOC states that Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individuals employment, unreasonably interferes with an individuals work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-a, n.d.).
I do not have to do an in-depth analysis just to ascertain that the actions of the male officer were unwelcome since it was mainly the reason why the victim complained to her fellow female officer. Obviously, therefore, the first part of the EEOC definition of harassment has been met the actions of the male officer were unwelcome sexual advances. The information, therefore, should be treated seriously before the situation gets out of hand. Being an officer with a supervisory rank, it is my responsibility to act with dispatch.

If the information is true, the situation acquires more urgency because then the second part of the EEOC definition of sexual harassment may have also been met. It is possible, based on the narration of the informant female officer, that the unwelcome advances may have already created an intimidating and a hostile workplace environment. It follows, therefore, that the performance of the victim is being unreasonably interfered with. First, the alleged sexual advances were made during roll call and in the presence of other police officers. In other words, the actions were inevitably witnessed by the other officers. In spite of this, it is obvious that not even one male officer who witnessed the acts did not do anything about them. I would have already heard of them even before the informant came to me if somebody actually did do something to defend the victim, since the incidents would surely have reached me through the grapevine.

This only proves that the male officers did not only condone the acts  they might even have encouraged the harasser to continue making them. As a matter of fact, it is also possible that the atmosphere in the workplace has already reached an intolerable level because, also according to the informant, the victim already fears that if she files an official complaint, her perception is that her fellow officers would strike back at her for being a tattletale. In other words, a discrimination based on the gender of the complaining female officer may already be taking place in the department in actual violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (EEOC-a, n.d.).

As a supervisor, my first responsibility is to treat the information seriously even if such information was not given to me directly by the primary victim herself. As a matter of fact, the informant could not be considered a third party in this case since according to the EEOC, the victim in an act of sexual harassment does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct. Technically, therefore, the informant is also a victim in this situation (EEOC-a, n.d.). As a supervisor, I could not ignore the information because failure on my part to act promptly on a sexual harassment complaint could be interpreted later that our organization officially and intentionally failed to act on the case. It could therefore expose the police department to the risk of a sexual harassment case (Strategic HR Services, n.d.).

This was the essence of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Duch v. Jakubek ( 588 F. 3d 757 2d Cir. 2009). In that case, the Court said that the supervisors purposeful ignorance of the nature and extent of harassing behavior does not shield an employer from liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Based on that decision, if it could be established later that I have learned of this case of sexual harassment but failed to act properly and promptly on it, the police department of which I am a supervisor could be held liable (Peikes and Brown, n.d.). In other words, although I could not be held personally liable, I could only free my employer - the police department  from liability if I could prove that I took immediate and appropriate corrective actions on the complaint brought before me (Sexual Harassment Support, n.d.).

My immediate reaction would therefore be to talk personally, albeit confidentially, with the primary victim so as to protect her from possible retaliation even before the investigation gets fully underway. Such an interview is necessary not only to verify the information given to me by the informant but also to get as much details as possible directly from the primary victim. The interview should also allow me to gauge the severity of the effect of the alleged harassing conduct on the primary victim herself. Based on the interview, a report would have to be prepared and submitted to upper management. If the primary victim proves credible, my report would recommend that a formal investigation should immediately be conducted.

In my interview with the primary victim, I would ask her what specific sexual advances were made. I have to establish the severity of the actions or conduct of the harasser. I would also ask her whether the actions were done only once or were, in fact, done repeatedly. This is because if it could be established that the conduct of the harasser was severe enough, a hostile environment was consequently created even if the action was only done once. On the other hand, although the conduct or action was not severe enough, if the action was done repeatedly, then such a repetition would have created a hostile environment for the victim just the same (Strategic HR Services, n.d.). This is because in Merritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (106 S. Ct. 2399, 40 EPD 1986), the United States Supreme Court ruled that for sexual harassment to violate Title VII, it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive  to alter the conditions of the victims employment and create an abusive working environment (EEOC-b, 1999).

The interview would also allow me to establish the severity or pervasiveness of the alleged harassers conduct based on the standards of a reasonable person. This is in observance of the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Zabkowicz v. West Bend Co. (589 F. Supp. 780, 784,35 EPD 1984) declaring that Title VII does not serve as a vehicle for vindicating the petty slights suffered by the hypersensitive. The reasonable person standard should also be used in determining whether the alleged conduct could be considered sexual in nature. In other words, according to the Court ruling, if the work environment is not affected substantially when judged according to the standards of a reasonable person, no violation of Title VII has occurred. The same is true when the conduct or action is not sexual in nature according to a reasonable person. It also important for me to interview the primary victim because, according to the Courts ruling in Cf Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co. (805 F 2d 611, 6th Cir.1886), the reasonable person standard should be employed according to her perspective (EEOC-b, 1999).

Regardless of the results of the interview, I would advise the primary victim that if she has not yet done it, she should first confront the harasser and tell him to immediately stop what he has been doing. In the past, this has proven to be very effective. Harassers were found to desist when the victims made it clear that they did not welcome their actions and that they should immediately stop doing them. A simple and direct statement like Please stop what you are doing because I do not like it would usually suffice. I would also assure the primary victim not to fear any retaliation  whether from the harasser himself or from the other male officers -because it is prohibited by Title VII. I would further advise her to promptly inform me as soon as any retaliatory moves become evident from any quarters so that proper corrective or disciplinary actions could be taken (Strategic HR Services, n.d.).

If the male officer continues harassing the victim even after the victim tells him to stop what he has been doing, I would strongly recommend to my superiors that formal investigations should immediately commence. Evidence would then have to be gathered by talking to every possible witness. Once a sexual harassment case is proven, it is expected that management would have to subject the male officer to proper disciplinary action. On the other hand, even if the male officer heeds the warning of the victim and consequently puts a stop to his conduct, I would nevertheless make it a point that every officer in our command is informed that sexual harassment would no longer be tolerated in the future.