Over the years, sexual harassment has taken root in many corporate organizations. (Mathis & Jackson, 2010). This kind of behavior in the workplace explicitly or implicitly affects how workers work. Continued exertion of sexual harassment makes the working environment for the employees intimidating and offending (Badgett & Frank, 2007).
Sexual orientation can conventionally be defined as the sexual or romantic attraction that an individual can have towards the same sex, opposite sex or both sexes and this attraction can plainly be subdued into heterosexuality, homosexuality, asexuality and bisexuality. Sexual orientation develops due to sexual preference for a particular sex and thus, one becomes affiliated to any of the sex group highlighted above (Badgett & Frank, 2007).
The above definitions have clearly highlighted that same sex harassment entails making of unwanted sexual advances towards members of the same sex. For instance, a superior male officer in the organization may make sexually harass another junior male staff. Therefore, in a nutshell same sex harassment entails members of the same sex regardless of their sexual orientation (Badgett & Frank, 2007).
On the other hand, sexual orientation harassment in the organization happens where the sexual orientation of the victim is known and therefore, the harassers taunt the victim based on his or her sexual affiliation. For instance, a male employee maybe heterosexual, but due to his physique that is deemed feminine by other employees they may view him as being gay which may not be the case. This happens without reference to one’s sexual orientation (Badgett & Frank, 2007).
The Oncale v. sundown offshore services Inc. 523 US 75 (1998) caseThe description
This case entails sexual harassment that violates one’s legal rights stated in the title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on one’s sex, in this case, the harassed being male and the harasser is also male (Twomey, 2009).
The precedents set in this landmark case in the arena of sexual discrimination is that it gave the law courts in the United States the basis of analyzing sex same harassment, cases of sexual discrimination that was not motivated by sexual desires and sexual discrimination that fundamentally put one in a disadvantageous position at the workplace regardless of the sex of the affected person.
The precedents set by this case are crucial because they gave victims the leeway of exposing the kind of sexual discrimination they underwent in their workplaces
The only disadvantage that has emanated from this case is that it is very difficult for the low-level federal law courts to discern which case belongs in this genre of sex offences meted on persons by members of the same sex.