Barrio Bantog Essay - 961 Words

Princess Loriebelle M. Rivera Management 19: Good Governance and Social Responsibility MTh 10:30am-12:00pm, Section C Case 11.3 Consenting to Sexual Harassment 1. According to her own testimony, Vinson acquiesced to Taylor’s sexual demands. In this sense her behavior was â€Å"voluntary†. Does the voluntariness of her behavior means that she had â€Å"consented† to Taylor’s advances? Does it mean that they were â€Å"welcome†? Do you agree that Vinson’s acquiescence shoes there was no sexual harassment? Which court was right about this? Defend your position. 2. In your opinion, under what circumstances would acquiescence be a defense to charges of sexual harassment? When would it not be a defense? Can you formulate a general rule for†¦show more content†¦4. What steps do you think Vinson should have taken when Taylor first pressed her for sex? Should she be blamed for having given to him? Assuming that there was sexual harassment despite her acquiescence, does her going along with Taylor make her partly responsible or mitigate Taylor’s wrongdoing? Mechelle Vinson should also take part of the blame for having given to Sidney Taylor. Even though Taylor threatened her on jeopardizing his work and it was against her will, she agrees to Taylor’s sexual demands which in that sense makes her actions voluntary. The voluntariness of her behavior means that she had contested to Taylor’s advances, which shows that there is no sexual harassment happened. If you are aware that you’re being involved in sexual harassment, make a move as soon as possible. As to Mechelle Vinson, she should have notified the company beforehand so that preventive measures were implemented. 5. In court, Vinson’s allegations were countered by Taylor’s version of the facts. Will there always be a â€Å"your word against mine† problem in sexual harassment cases? What could Vinson have done to strengthen her case? Princess Loriebelle M. Rivera Management 19: Good Governance and Social Responsibility MTh 10:30am-12:00pm, Section C Barrio Bantog 1. What is the main problem in the case? Ans: The main problem in the case was how to stop or cut the prevalent problem of gambling activities which was operated byShow MoreRelatedCase Study-Barrio Bantog1665 Words   |  7 PagesCentral Azucarera de Tarlac (CAT). There were nine barrios in Hacienda Luisita, each barrio had its own overseer, and each had a barrio captain. Barrio Bantog was located on Hacienda Luisita. There were four hundred thirty five people lived in Barrio Bantog, and the settlers lived with simple entertainment and few luxuries, one of the the accepted diversion was gambling. Jose Zaldo was an overseer of Barrio Bantog and Luis Calero was the barrio captain. In 1964, Jose Zaldo was facing with an important