To be read and answer question Misplaced for Affections for Sexual Harrasment

They hold well defined anti bullying and sexual harassment protective policies that are well equipped definitions of purpose, scope, prohibited behavior and enumerated groups. New York State Law No. 16 directly deals with the sexual harassment cases and that is very well referable to the case of Peter Fenning. At the same time, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sexual harassments include unwelcome sexual advances that do not have to be strictly physical in nature and can also be verbal., and it clearly does not include simple teasing or off hand comments but does include any misbehaving remarks made about the gender (U.S. Equal Emploment Oppurtunity Commision, 2012). As per the definition of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Conduct of Peter Fenning is generally offensive since he did not make any unpleasant or demark able sexual advancements and thus does not contain enough material to be concluded as a sexually offensive act or a sexually harassing deal. 2. Should the intent or motive behind Fenning’s conduct be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities? Explain The case provided that has detailed Fenning’s attitude towards his coworker Beverly Sanger, that gives shots of his attitude and actions that she claimed offensive and marked them as sexual harassment. However, as per the explanations about sexual harassment by the New York State and Federal Laws and Equal Employment opportunity Commission explained above and a further Fenning’s apparent actions cannot be classified as sexually harassing. In fact, according to a survey, most of us nowadays spend most of the time at work, for instance, even if the job is not eight to ten hours long and is five to six hours of business, it yet requires a high level commitment amongst coworkers since the nature of their work requires too much of coordinate works (Lisa Gurin, 2010). This naturally builds cross affiliations and it becomes very natural for the people to like each other. Under certain circumstances, someone would like the extra attention and care while someone else might not. These cannot be classified as sexually harassing advances since they are very strict in nature and they include pushing some coworker or subordinate for physical favors (Lisa Gurin, 2010). Now, since his acts do not qualify the definition of sexual harassment, his actions and intention could be reviewed to assess if he actually meant to harass Beverly Sanger sexually. The case shows that he tried to convey his feelings in a very humble way and later tried to proceed with a flower bouquet instead of appearing physically around her. If he intended to sexually harass her he could have done all the time when they worked together, where, according to the case he stayed humble. He never seemed to have irritated her or touched her annoyingly. The case of Fenning’s and Beverly Sanger is not at all a sexual harassment scene. In fact, Beverly Sanger seems to have over reacted when the case was a simple scene of attraction between two coworkers where one was attracted towards the other while the other had no feelings. 3. If you were District EEOC’