Case 11.

3: Consenting to Sexual Harrasment

● Apply the Theory of Action Model to evaluate the moral or ethical quality of the decisions
and actions of participants in Case 11.3: Consenting to Sexual Harrasment.

There are different sides of the story involved in the case of the alld sexual harassment
of Ms. Vinson at Capital City Federal Savings & Loans. To evaluate the moral or ethical quality of
the decisions and actions of participants, we will have to apply Theory of Action Model and its
underlying concepts. Given that there are different sides of the story, we will have to briefly
discuss the facts stated from the case. First, Ms. Vinson’s statement regarding the Mr. Taylor’s
sexual harrassment. According to her, she testified that Mr. Taylor asked to have sexual
relations with him in exchange for her employment at the bank. If she does not agree to his
demands, he will put her job in jeopardy. For three years, she has been “assaulted or raped ”,
threatened and forced by Mr. Taylor to consent. On other hand, Mr. Taylor denied these
allegations against him and argued that Ms. Vinson was the one made the sexual advances and
accused him for these allegation only to “get even” due to a labor dispute. Furthermore, the
court stated that the organization, the Capital City Federal Savings Loan, was not liable for the
sexual harrassment that occured for 3 years since they had notice of the alleged harrassment.

By using the concept of degree of voluntariness, we must analyze the actions performed
by Ms. Vinson’s case. Assuming the statements of Ms. Vinson were true, we can say that her
degree of voluntariness is imperfectly involuntary. This is because she was forced to have sexual
relations with Mr. Taylor in exchange for her employment. If she does not cooperate, then Ms.
Vinson will lose her job at the bank. It was imperfectly involuntary because her fear (emotion)
of losing her job affected her decision to accept the supervisors demands (acquiesce ). Due to
her fear, she was forced to do an unethical act even though she was aware that Mr. Taylor’s
conditions were wrong. Furthermore, while she permitted to consent the sexual favors and
conditions of her supervisor, this does not imply that Ms. Vinson consented willingly or
voluntarily to his advances since she was threatened or coerced into consenting it.

In relation to the morality of action, the three determinants of morality are the object of
the act, the intention of the person (agent), and the circumstances. For Ms. Vinson, the
purpose or object of the act would be saving her job employment. Since Ms. Vinson's purpose
was to save and protect her job from being jeopardized, the objective of the act itself is ethical.
For her motive, her intention of achieving the objective end would be Ms. Vinson would be
consenting to Mr. Taylor’s advances to avoid losing her job. Because she was threatened, she
was forced to consent to his conditions if she did not comply. However, this does not indicate
that she fully consented to his unwanted sexual advances since she was forced and coerced into
consenting. The person will be held liable in any situation if the person voluntarily and willfully
consented to the unwanted sexual advances. Moreover, based on our discussions, the ethical
agent performs a voluntary action with full awareness or consciousness of what is being
performed, as well as has the strong determination of the will. Therefore, Ms. Vinson should
not be held morally responsible since she only acquiesced in Mr. Taylor’s advances, not willfully
consented.
 As for the circumstances or surrounding act, they engaged their sexual relations for
almost 3 years at the Capital City Federal Savings & Loans (CCF&L) during and after business
hours. She further states that their encounters included intercourses in a bank vault and at a
storage facility in the bank basement. Given this evidences, Ms. Vinson qualifies the one of the
forms of sexual harassment which is the Quid-Pro-Quo harassment. The first kind of sexual
harassment applies to Ms. Vinson’s since Mr. Taylor asked sexual favors in exhange for her job
employment. In relation to Ms. Vinson’s situation, she should have immediately filed the
complaint to either the appropriate employer or management regarding the alleged sexual
harassment in the first place. From there, she could have explained or presented the facts and
evidences right away that she was sexually harassed by Mr. Taylor in their first encounter.

However, the court ruled that CCF&L is not held responsible since they had no notice of
the alleged sexual harrassment. Despite not being aware of or not receiving any complaints
from employees, the bank is held morally responsible for not being protective over their
employees and staff, and not carefully supervising them on a regular basis. Moreover, the
employer or even the management of the bank has the moral and ethical obligation to protect
its employees from being harassed, coerced, and physically harmed by other employees, as well
as to help them address their problems by acquiring factual evidence to substantiate serious
allegations.

In resolving Ms. Vinson’s case, she could have just reported Mr. Taylor directly to
management during the first encounter where the sexual harrassment took place. She could
have report to the employer or management that Mr. Taylor asked for sexual advances,
demands, and favors which were unwelcomed. She could have told management that Mr.
Taylor often “assaulted or raped” her, as well as threated her to consent in exchagne for her
employment at the bank. She could support her claims by providing evidence such as company
camera footage, video or voice recordings, witnesses, and other factual evidence to
substantiate her allegations. Ms. Vinson could have done this sooner in case of future sexual
threats, demands, and assaults from her supervisor.

Furthermore, not only she must report the incident to management, but also to her
family members. It’s important that Ms. Vinson consults with people whom she trusts,
particularly her family and friends, to support her decisions and take legal actions against Mr.
Taylor in case of failure on the company’s part to resolve the sexual harassment .

If the employer or management of CCF&L was unable to make the corrective actions,
failed to take disciplinary measures, or reprimand Mr. Taylor, then Ms. Vinson must
immediately seek a lawyer and discuss with him what legal options are left available to take an
immediate action. In addition to that, she may provide facts and factual evidences that sexual
harassment took place within the workplace by providing copies of written log dates, times, and
important documents, witnesses, events, and recordings such as phone record or company
camera footage to support her claims.