When you own business with any number of employees must do their best to maintain a work environment that is free of sexual harassment. If employers take reasonable steps to prevent it, they aren't legally liable for their employees actions. This is especially true when a co-worker is sexually harassed by another co-workers after hours.

In one recent case of after hours sexual harassment, ironically, includes the holidays. The victim, a woman in New Jersey, had been disciplined several times for being late for work and not following proper protocols when calling in sick to work. Near Christmas, the woman invited a co-worker to holiday party she was going to attend.

The two met in the work lobby and headed out to her car to get to the party. After getting into her car, she claimed that her co-worker sexually harassed and assaulted her. She claims that her co-worker tried kissing her, grabbing her breast, and then unzipped his pants and tried to force her head down into his lap.

According to the reports, she was able to escape and then promptly reported the incident to her supervisors. As a result, the co-worker was reprimanded and demoted for conduct unbecoming of a corrections officer. This though did little to stop her lateness for work and total absenteeism. For this, she was later terminated. After hearing this story, it's not surprising to know that she tried to sue the corrections facility for having a sexually hostile environment and was ultimately sued for reporting the sexual harassment against her.

After hearing both sides, the court threw out the charges. The court decided that the employer wasn't liable for the harassment, since it was a single isolated incident that happened outside the workplace. The second reason the court dismissed the case was due to the employers actions to stop and punish the sexual harassment that had occurred as quickly as possible. The court noted the step the employers took as satisfactory, namely by demoting the harasser.

The third and final reason the courts decided against the harasser was the fact that Nyatome was fired for her constant absenteeism and sick days. The employers had kept close track of her attendance problems, making sure everything was documented. In the end, the court decided that her termination was truly due to her absenteeism and not a punishment for reporting her sexual harassment.

All in all, the employers did the right thing. If the employers would have required all the employees take sexual harassment classes this situation may have been avoided altogether.

 If the company would have required that training then the harasser may have thought twice before committing the act, since he would have been properly educated on what is sexual harassment and what is not. In many cases, the placement of camera's in public places, like the parking lot, can do a world of good. This is especially true for sexual harassment and wrongful termination cases. 

The California state Senate, behind closed doors, approved a $120,000 payout to settle a sexual harassment charge against Democratic senator Rodney Wright of Inglewood. The charges were filed against him by a former staff member. The $120,000 settlement was agreed upon in April of 2010, after the two attorneys met in private mediation. The former aid, Fahizah Alim was reassigned to another democratic Senate office, after stating the work environment for Ms. Alim was, "totally inappropriate" and completely "intolerable."

Ms. Alim's attorney, John Poswell, went on to say that the behavior displayed by Senator Wright  was "…beyond anything anyone would expect of a public official, or any employer of the 20th century!" The spokesman for Senator Wright declined to make a statement in response to that, and simply said they could not discuss what they described as a personal issue. Many would believe that the personal issue stopped when public monies were used for the payment of the public settlement.

The money was payed to the victim, Ms. Alim, out of a publicly funded trust, called the Senate operating fund. The payout was approved in a closed door session, where reporters and cameras are not allowed. That, sadly, was not the only funds payed out for sexual harassment cases using public tax-payer money. Another $89,500 was payed to a former aid of a different senator, named Carol Liu. The charges or motions filed against her does not state the name of the victim or the type of sexual harassment experienced.

Ms. Alim's attorney, John Poswell, admitted that the money paid was out of tax-payer funds, but agreed with the senator and courts that she would not discuss the matter openly or on public record. That small detail makes one wonder if it is due to a confidentiality clause that, if broken, could result in the forfeiture of the money paid. This practice of keeping the public in the dark on why money is being spent on a private citizens court costs, instead of the public good, makes government watchdogs bark very loudly.

One in particular is the California Common Cause. They stated, "There are sensitive personnel matters around this, but there should have been some sort of notice that these funds were going to be appropriated," said Phillip Ung, the spokesman and policy advocate for the C.C.C.

It goes without saying that this isn't the first time public funds have been used to pay off a private sexual harassment case. In 2005, the Democratic Assembly agreed to payout another $118,000. reportedly, this is due to Senator Rebecca Cohn creating a "sexually charged and hostile work environment." Again, in 2000, the lower house approved nearly $150,000 to a woman who claimed she was being sexually harassed by her supervisor, Assemblyman Lou Papan, also a Democrat.

Many of these sexual harassment charges and payouts could easily be avoided if every member of congress is required to take a sexual harassment education course. It will open their eyes and their minds to what is acceptable in today's standards of political correctness. The aids they work with should also be required to take these classes, that way they know what constitutes sexual harassment and what doesn't. That alone can save the country, and individual states, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars.