Law Legal Considerations in a Sexual Harassment Case in Ohio vs. Florida
Sexual harassment encompasses a broad range of activities which can accrue civil liability or criminal punishment once the case is proven in court. A sexual harassment claim can be categorized as Quid Pro Quo or hostile environment harassment depending on whether or not there is evidence of consent mistake or bodily harm. Different states use different standards to adjudicate sexual harassment litigations. In the Florida case, the victim had evidence of infliction of bodily harm due to forceful conviction by the restaurant attendant. In the Ohio case, the customer has conscientious sex with the waiter after mistaking him for a film star. Under Ohio’s antidiscrimination law, women belong to a protected class; therefore, any unwelcome aggravation against women is considered unlawful. The Ohio case differs from that of Florida in that the victim was aware of the act.
The acts that constitute sexual harassment in Ohio are different from that of Florida. Therefore; despite the outstanding similarity between this case and that of Florida, the events are fundamentally dfferent. The statutory laws safeguarding sexual harassment victims in Florida mandates the aggrieved to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the Florida Commission of Human Relations (FCHR) within 300days. In the context of this case, the Florida sexual harassment victim had a strong case against restaurant attendant involving negligent tort and strict liability.
On the other hand, Ohio State has no explicit rules addressing sexual harassment which means that; if the case is taken up for proceedings, then the jurists will rely on the common law to deliver a ruling. This means that the verdict will not be appalling due to the few number of sexual harassment cases won by claimants with arguments. When deciding whether the alleged demeanor constituted sexual harassment, Ohio Civil Rights Commission will definitely underscore the nature and context of the supposed sexual harassment incident using tangible evidence presented in court. In my view, the appellant will not be able to avail substantial evidence and present a proper argument that will suffice to incriminate the accused employee. Therefore, he will be exonerated.