According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC,) sexual harassment is considered harassment in a sexual nature and must be "unwelcomed" ("Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment," 1990, p. 1,2). There are two types of sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile work environment. Quid pro is when one party offers something in return for the sexual services, and hostile work environment is such behavior that makes a hostile, intimidating, and/or offensive work environment (Alvarez, 2014). In the first case example, the charging party (CP) alleges that she was subjected to sexual harassment. According to the case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, when determining whether this case was sexual harassment, we must go through a series of questions - was the sexual conduct "unwelcomed," what evidence do we have to prove the CP was subjected to sexual harassment, and was the work environment "hostile? ("Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment," 1990, p. 1). While we have a brief description of what had happened, more information is necessary in order to determine the definitive outcome.

First, we have to determine if the sexual conduct in this case was "unwelcomed." According to the CP, the plaintiff stated she was submitted to sexual conduct that was "unwelcomed." The sexual conduct was on-going as she feared that she would lose her job. I believe that, in this case, the sexual conduct was "unwelcomed." Although more information would be helpful, from the information provided, I would consider this case "unwelcomed." According to McConnell, good supervisors should have a respectful relationship with their employees and bestow high ethical and moral standards (McConnell, 2018, p. 13). Providing an environment of "unwelcomeness" is certainly not ethical and moral in my opinion.

Secondly, we must evaluate the evidence of the CP's claim. Since it was not provided in the description, I think we need to interview the CP's co-workers in order to see if there were any witnesses to sexual harassment, a known relationship between the CP and her supervisor, anyone aware about the sexual harassment situation in question, and if the employer was made aware of this claim, and if so, what was done about it ("Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment," 1990, p. 5, 6). In my opinion, this is a critical step in the process of determining sexual harassment. These questions are essential in the process.

Lastly, we must determine if the work environment is/was hostile. According to the policy guidance on current issues of sexual harassment, sexual harassment may be quid pro quo, hostile environment, or a combination of both. A hostile work environment is when such actions a "hostile, intimidating or offensive work environment ("Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment," 1990, p. 6)." There should be such proof that this was a true hostile work environment which is defined in title VII. If a person is super sensitive, Title VII does not constitute that it is sexual harassment. ("Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment," 1990, p. 7). According to the "Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment," the use of a "reasonable person," which is someone who can validate that the environment is hostile, is extremely valuable and will further prove the case ("Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment," 1990, p. 7). Based on the example provided, there was no statement whether there was a "reasonable person" to validate that the work environment was hostile. Although, just because no one has witnessed it or there was no "reasonable person" to provide evidence, it is not to say the case was sexual harassment or not. According to the case example, the EEOC did decide that the CP was creditable. There may have been other circumstances or a "reasonable person" involved in the case.

In making a final decision regarding whether the CP's claim for sexual harassment is valid or not, more information is needed. Although there was a lack on information provided, the case example stated that there was "unwelcomed behavior," and the work environment seemed to be uncomfortable for the CP, making it a "hostile work environment." The investigator has deemed that the CP is creditable and the lag time between the such stated harassment and time reported is not to be considered to undercut CP's claim. I would consider this case to be of sexual harassment and proper remedial action to be considered.