Concordia University Chicago Bullying and Anti Harassment Policy Paper Bullying and workplace harassment , whether in schools or in the non-K12 organizatio

Concordia University Chicago Bullying and Anti Harassment Policy Paper Bullying and workplace harassment , whether in schools or in the non-K12 organizational entities, has emerged over the past decade to have a considerable degree of policy discussion and debate. This phenomenon has significant emotional, physical, and psychological impacts upon students and adults in all organizations. To ascertain how bullying/anti-harassment behaviors are being addressed in organizations via formal policy doctrine it serves to review and evaluate the existing policy standards promulgated in your organization in comparison to other published organizational policy statements.

You are to review the appropriate course linked workplace policy for the purpose of comparing and contrasting its stated procedural actions against your organization’s bullying/anti-harassment/discrimination policy. You are required to use the following policies that are inked above and not locate any others.

Walton School District,
Generic workplace bullying policy,
corporate/government policy-NASA,
anti-harassment policy from higher education-UGA

You are required to apply only one of these selected policies against your own workplace policy. (Policies are inked in the Blackboard Assignment Section).

Please substantively and thoroughly address the following seven (7) questions:

How does the sample bullying policy/anti-harassment language compare or not compare with the language in your organization’s policy? To what degree is it similar and/or different?
Considering the procedural steps and reporting components outlined in the policy samples how does it match or not match with your organization’s policy?
What components of the sample bullying/anti-harassment policy would you consider appropriate to enhance your organization’s bullying/anti-harassment policy and why?
What specific elements of the sample bullying policy/ anti-harassment policy would not be effective within your organization and why?
To the best of your knowledge how has your organization’s bullying policy/ anti-harassment policy been communicated to those in the organization?
To the best of your knowledge how successful do you believe that the policy been in addressing bullying and working to prevent it?
Now that you have thoroughly assessed these bullying/ anti-harassment policies how or how not has this assignment added to your knowledge base?

The Bullying Policy: A Comparative Study should not exceed ten (10) word processed, double-spaced pages with a minimum of eight (8) pages. The written paper must conform to APA Style Manual (6th Edition). CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO
Doctoral Program
Student:
Day Telephone:
Evening Telephone:
Assignment Title:
The Bullying Policy: A Comparative Study
Date of Submission:
12/03/2016
Assignment Due Date:
12/04/2016
Course:
EDL-7210 Policy Analysis
Section Number:
Semester:
Fall 2016
Course Instructor:
Dr. L. Arthur Safer
Certification of Authorship: I certify that I am the author of this paper and that any assistance I
received in its preparation is fully acknowledged and disclosed in the paper. I also have cited any
sources from which I used data, ideas, or words, either quoted directly or paraphrased. I certify
that this paper was prepared by me specifically for the purpose of this assignment, as directed.
Student’s Signature:
[Digital signature]
Running Header: ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
A Comparative Analysis of Government and Non-profit Workplace
Anti-harassment Policies
Concordia University
1
ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY COMPARATIVE
2
ANALYSIS
Abstract
As workplace diversity increases, the role of anti-harassment policies for the purpose of protecting
people’s civil rights becomes more important. This paper analyzes these policies in government and nonprofit sectors in order to apply appropriate characteristics to a proposed community not-for-profit
organization. Florida statutes and constitutional language germane to this discussion will be provided, and
consideration will be applied to the development of anti-harassment criteria for the new organization, a
countywide tax funded non-profit entity unique to this state. Relevant aspects of the appropriate policies
of NASA, a federal government agency; the United Way of Lee, Hendry, Glades and Okeechobee
Counties, a non-profit organization; and LLLCountu of Southwest Florida, the county’s government
agency will be studied for the purpose of providing effective suggestions to guide anti-harassment policy
formation for this new program. In addition, categories pertinent to this specific comparative analysis
assignment will be addressed.
Keywords: government and non-profit anti-harassment policies, comparative analysis
ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY COMPARATIVE
3
ANALYSIS
A Comparative Analysis of Government and Non-profit Workplace
Anti-harassment Policies
The precursor and basis for today’s anti-harassment policies, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA),
which Aiken, Salmon & Hanges, 2013 identify as a “watershed moment in American history” summarily
outlaws “the systematic, far-reaching, and in some cases, legally sanctioned discrimination that had
prevailed for decades” (p. 338). Relevant to this discussion, Title VII of this Act specifically speaks to
workplace discrimination, and among other things, deems it unlawful to discriminate because of “race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin,” and establishes and empowers the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “to prevent any person from engaging in any unlawful employment
practice.” Therefore, the EEOC’s definition of harassment, reporting procedures, delineation of liability,
and practices for prevention provide guidance in the analysis of specific policies.
Anti-harassment policy comparative analysis of each area delineated by this assignment is
distinctively influenced by two factors. The first is the context in which the employment policy exists.
Therefore, relevant Florida law and associated public perception will be presented and addressed.
Secondly, the type of organization being considered for analysis, a non-profit entity supported by
taxpayer dollars, presents unique challenges. Characteristics of a (CSC) that directly impact the choice of
comparison anti-harassment policies considered for this paper are described.
Working Environment in Florida
Florida is a “right to work” state as defined in Article I, Section 6 of its state constitution.
Although not directly involved with anti-harassment, public perception of this section deems otherwise.
The law states that “the right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of
membership or non-membership in any labor union or labor organization” whose ability “to bargain
collectively shall not be denied or abridged,” and denies public employees “the right to strike.” However,
ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY COMPARATIVE
4
ANALYSIS
many employers and employees misunderstand this and believe that “right to work” entitles employers to
terminate employees at anytime and for whatever reason. Believing they have no rights, employees,
especially those of certain demographics whose ability to change jobs may be limited, “are unlikely to
report incidents of abuse or unfair treatment because they are afraid that they will lose their job”
(Calahan, 2011, p. 44). Therefore, without a complaint, there is no consequence for discrimination or
harassment, from which employees are protected under federal law (CRA). In some states, including
Florida, the “right to work” has been misrepresented as “the right to fire” (Calahan, 2011, p. 46).
Also affecting anti-harassment attitudes in Florida is the acceptance and lawful adherence to the
employment-at-will doctrine, meaning employment is “terminable by either the employer or the employee
for any reason whatsoever;” the employee can be terminated for “good cause, bad cause, or no cause at
all” (Muhl 2001, p. 3). Three exceptions to this law exist: public-policy, implied-contract, and covenantof-good-faith. Although beyond the scope of this paper to describe each exception, it is noteworthy that
Florida is only one of four states that do not recognize any of these major exceptions. To put this in
perspective, 43 states accept the public policy exception, 38 states accept the implied-contract exception,
and 11 states accept the covenant-of-good-faith exception (Muhl, 2011, pp. 5, 7, 9). Whereas “at-will”
employment can also be viewed as providing opportunity for employees to seek out the best possible
situation without concern that current employers will not allow them to move on, “the law has been
twisted to mean that employers can fire their employees without cause or justification;” thereby “creating
an environment that is conducive to abuse by employers” (Calahan, 2011, p. 50).
The Florida Civil Rights Act parallels the CRA and bars discrimination on the basis of “race, color,
religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status” with respect to hiring practices,
compensation, terms, conditions, privileges of employment, and other noted employment practices.
5
ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS
Procedures for addressing violations are outlined, the investigative process described, and possible
resolutions presented. Because federal law supersedes state statute, Floridians are also protected by the
CRA, which includes harassment as a type of discrimination. However, the prevailing negative
connotations of the terms “right to work” and “at will” create an environment conducive to
misunderstanding and distrust.
CSC
(CSCs) are a type of government entity established by county citizens to help fund programs that
serve children and families, such as the Boys & Girls Clubs, Healthy Start Coalitions, and Big
Brothers/Big Sisters. The non-profit organization Pennies for Community Progress (P4CP) is currently
pursuing implementation of an independent CSC as a means of fulfilling part of its mission, “ending
systemic and structural poverty and violence . . . in LLL County ” (Florida Department of State, 2016).
Unlike a dependent CSC, which falls within the county’s annual budget, an independent CSC has
voter-approved taxing authority to ensure a dedicated funding source is available for services that
improve the health and well being of children and families. A portion of property taxes supports programs
that meet the specific needs of people living in the community. In this way, the CSC can “make sure
children of all ages are healthy, safe and prepared to learn” (http:// overview/). Unique to Florida, only six
counties have formed CSCs since establishment in 1986. Requests for anti-harassment policies for the
purpose of this assignment were unanswered. Though funded through donations, the United Way
functions similar to a CSC: both are non-profit organizations that support existing statistically proven
successful community programs. Because a CSC is a countywide government entity, the LLL County
policy was also chosen for analysis.
Therefore, anti-harassment policies from the United Way of LLL HHH, GG and Ok (United
Way) and the LLL County Southwest Florida County Government (LGov) will be compared with the
ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY COMPARATIVE
6
ANALYSIS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) policy template in order to provide guidance for
development of a policy for the proposed Children’s Services Council of LLL County (CSC).
Anti-harassment policy language
With language similar to that provided by the EEOC, all three policies identify protected classes,
define harassment and address sexual harassment.
Protected Classes
The EEOC considers harassment a form of employment discrimination based upon race, color,
religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information,
most recently adding the categories of gender identity and sexual orientation (2012). Whereas NASA and
LGov provide similar, though not as inclusive lists, the United Way (see the Appendix) bases harassment
“on a person’s status under the law.” Also, whether the purpose is to be thorough or progressive, LeeGov
adds “any other category of persons protected by federal, state, or local law or ordinance or regulation.”
Whereas listing each protected class may seem arduous, it seems more inclusive than referring to
one’s “status under the law.” Reviewing the policy annually with respect to changes in EEOC regulations
will enable employers to update protected classes and provide a frame of reference for employees.
Harassment Defined
All three policies define harassment as “unwelcome conduct.” According to the EEOC, this
conduct becomes unlawful when “1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued
employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a
reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.” With only slight variations, all three
policies use similar language that clearly addresses these two standards.
ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY COMPARATIVE
7
ANALYSIS
On the other hand, each organization’s description of what harassment is not indicates differing
attitudes. As a basis for comparison, the EEOC states that “Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated
incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality.” Acknowledging the
employee’s viewpoint as valid, NASA considers “the perspective of the recipient” in determining
“whether the behavior constitutes harassment,” whereas LGov’s statement that “an unpleasant or harsh
work environment” cannot be “hostile” without “a discriminatory basis for the behavior” appears cynical.
Further demonstrating the importance of language, United Way’s explanation that “normal, courteous,
mutually respectful, pleasant, non-coercive interaction . . . acceptable to both parties” should not be
considered harassment, including sexual harassment” communicates a condescending attitude.
Sexual Harassment
Perhaps because it continues to be one of the most common forms of workplace mistreatment,
sexual harassment is often explicitly addressed in anti-harassment policies (Buchanen, Settles, Hall, and
O’Conner, 2014, p. 688). Legally divided into two categories which parallel EEOC’s standards of
harassment, quid pro quo affects an employee’s tangible job benefits whereas hostile work environment
does not (Slobodien and Peters, 2012). Using language directly from the EEOC, LeeGov and United Way
describe this type of harassment as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other
physical verbal or visual conduct based on sex.
To be illegal, these unwelcome behaviors must be severe or pervasive enough to meet a
reasonable person’s and the complainant’s standard of a hostile work environment. In other words, sexual
harassment must meet both subjective and objective criteria (Goldman, Gutek, Stein, and Lewis, 2006, p.
810). Unlike the other policies, which provide no concrete examples, NASA’s policy dedicates one page
titled “What Does Harassment in the Workplace Look Like?” that provides relatable and practical
instances, such as “displaying nude or sexually suggestive objects, pictures, images, or cartoons,” and
ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY COMPARATIVE
8
ANALYSIS
“commenting on an employee’s body or sexual characteristics” (p. 4). Delineating between harassment,
sexual harassment, and other types of harassment examples would have provided even more clarity.
Procedural Steps and Reporting Components
The EEOC (2012) directs organizations to: (1) establish procedures for making a complaint; (2)
promptly and thoroughly investigate complaints; and (3) initiate prompt corrective action when a
complaint is substantiated (Buchanen et al., 2014, p. 690).
Of the three policies, NASA’s contains the most “straightforward procedure for resolution of
complaints” that provides employees with information regarding what will happen as well as who will
make it happen (Nagle, 2004, p. 19). Not only are all three of the EEOC’s directives explicitly outlined,
information about one’s rights under the EEO are included (p. 11). While LGov’s policy also explains the
sequence of reporting, investigating, and resolving claims, some aspects, such as a time limit (15 days) on
the reporting of a claim and inclusion of only an “internal complaint procedure” makes this policy less
user-friendly (pp. 2-3). Sparse in details, the United Way’s brief procedural description (two paragraphs)
includes the statement, “The very nature of harassment makes it virtually impossible to detect unless the
person being harassed registers his/her discontent with the appropriate person with the appropriate
person” (p. 3), seemingly implying that the burden of proof lies with the victim of the harassment.
Actually, in quid pro quo situations, employers are vicariously liable for harassment committed by a
supervisor regardless of whether they were aware of the conduct or took measures to prevent it
(Robinson, Mero & Nicholas, 2001, p. 38; Slobodien & Peters, 2012).
In addition to the three steps delineated by the EEOC, Nagle, 2004, advises, “the policy
should make absolutely clear that anyone who comes forward with a complaint will be protected
from retaliation” (p. 19). Both United Way and LeeGov address this “whistleblower” component
within their policies. Although NASA does not, their web site includes a link to a video “Federal
ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY COMPARATIVE
9
ANALYSIS
Whistleblower Rights and Protections” (https://osc.gov/Pages/videos.aspx). Inclusion of this
information in the policy would have been more effective. It is important that employers take
proactive steps in this arena in order to create a trusted environment. As Glick, 2004, states,
“When assured that they will be treated with dignity and respect, as well as protected from
further harassment and retaliation, individuals are empowered to report even those incidents that
involve a powerful perpetrator” (p. 789).
Communication of Policy
Although I cannot speak to how effectively each of these policies has been communicated from
an employees’ point of view, policy aspects that address this issue can be noted. Taking direction
from the EEOC’s statement that “Employers should strive to create an environment in which
employees feel free to raise concerns and are confident that those concerns will be addressed,”
strategies to do so include effective dissemination of information, education, training, and a
pervasive workplace attitude that harassment will not be tolerated.
Clearly worded anti-harassment policy should be present in all handbooks (Robinson, et
al., 2001, p. 40), distributed to every employee, and “placed prominently throughout the
company to ensure that individuals have ample exposure to the content” (Buchanen, et al., 2014,
p. 690). Although not noted, information that is available and easily accessible to speakers of
languages other than English, as well as brochures that include pictures or illustrations depicting
employees of different backgrounds, seems a vital component in the creation of an inclusive
workplace.
Educational interventions that actively engage participants have successfully increased
awareness of everyday, subtle sexism (e.g. benevolent sexism) and increased understanding of its
ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY COMPARATIVE
10
ANALYSIS
cumulative negative effects (Glick, 2014, p. 789). Effective anti-harassment training “places
importance on training managerial personnel to substantiate that there is no question they are
aware of their responsibilities . . . and are fully cognizant that any violations are expressly
contrary to their employer’s expressed desires” (Robinson, et al., 2001, p. 46). LGov requires all
new employees to receive “harassment avoidance training” within the first three months of hire
as well as annually. While NASA and United Way may provide such training, it is not included
in their anti-harassment policies.
Not spoken to in the aforementioned policies, the EEOC clearly holds the employer liable
“if it knew, or should have known (emphasis mine) about the harassment and failed to take
prompt and appropriate corrective action.” Slobodien and Peters, 2012, note that “an employer
can meet its burden to show that it took reasonable steps to prevent harassment only if it also
conducts training and otherwise acts to actively engage employees with the policies.” Therefore,
regular interactive trainings, as well as post-training activities are essential in order to protect the
employer as well as reduce the frequency of harassment complaints (Buchanan, et al., 2014, p.
46).
Successful Anti-harassment Policy
It is important to note that an absence of complaints “does not necessarily mean that the
policy is working well; it may mean that a fear of retaliation has hindered prompt reporting of
inappropriate conduct” (Nagle, 2004, p. 20). Therefore, without personal knowledge of policy
implementation, one cannot assess its efficacy.
ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY COMPARATIVE
11
ANALYSIS
Components of Analyzed Policies Appropriate for a CSC
The existence of these policies supports the prerequisite that such information should be
in writing rather than relying solely on verbal communication of harassment expectations
(Buchanan, et al., 2014; Robinson, et al., 2001). In varying degrees of detail, each also informs
employees of the procedures for reporting harassment (Slobodien and Peters, 2012).
Of the three analyzed, NASA’s uses the most clearly understood language in its
definition and “explains in detail the types of activities that are prohibited” (Nagle, 2004, p. 18).
Clear choices regarding to whom the complaints of harassment should be directed, including
individuals not in the chain of command are identified (NASA, p. 7). Unlike the other two
policies, NASA’s also contains procedural explanation of an employee’s right to pursue external
action via a discriminatory complaint with the EEO (p. 11). Most distinctive, however, is the
presentation of information. A colorful, easy to read brochures includes pictures of employees
engaged in appropriate, as well as subtly inappropriate, behavior, combined with an extensive list
of people one may contact for more informat…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment