1. Is there a case of sexual harassment in this situation or is it only fun?
Sexual harassment has become an increasingly prevalent issue in human resources management. To
properly identify an individual’s behaviour as sexual harassment, a Canadian Human Rights tribunal
established three important characteristics of this act: The encounters must be unsolicited, unwelcome
by the complainant, and expressly or implicitly known by the respondent to be unwelcome, the conduct
must continue despite the complainant’s protests (or if conduct stops, the protests must have led to
negative employment consequences), and the complainants cooperation must be due to employment
related threats or promises. In the Maple Leafs Shoes Ltd. case, these precedents set out by the Human
Rights Tribunal are met. Rosetta received unsolicited and unwelcome harassment throughout her day at
work, and while she made it clear she was uncomfortable, the respondents continued to do so with
intention. The conduct continued despite Rosetta’s complaints to both coworkers and Al until she was
forced to make a decision between her job and her basic rights as an employee. This conduct is classified
as sexual harassment and can result in major penalties for Maple Leafs Shoes Ltd through compensatory
damages and bad publicity.
2. If you were Eva, what would – and what could – you do? What are the options? What is the
probability of success in each option?
In order to take action against Al, and Maple Leaf Shoes Ltd. in defence of Rosetta and fellow female
workers, Eva must first contact Rosetta and fellow female coworkers in order to gain an idea of how
many women have felt personally victimized by the company such as Rosetta. After either convincing
the group to take action, or receiving permission to do so herself; Eva can begin her campaign. The
group or Eva must then contact the Canadian Human Rights Commission and file a formal complaint
against the company for harassment and discrimination.