Christian SalazarUH ID: 0979809Chapter 3 Case Study 1 and 2Case 1: This case is regarding a balance of employer’s needs and responsibilities with the employee’s needs and wants.1. What is your position on this issue?On this issue I personally would have taken the side of Booth and not Case Services’ HR director because a person who is quadriplegic has paralysis of all four limbs of the entire body below the neck. If Booth cannot pick up items she has dropped on the floor then the dog does constitute as a legal help for her to be mobile and pick up after herself. Also if the company was willing to hire someone to be by her side at all times to pick up anything she drops on the floor it’s like paying two persons to do one job. Furthermore, having a certified doctor’s note should have been sufficient in Booth’s case. 2. If you were an HR manager of a company, what pet policy would you set and how would you implement it?If I was an HR manager of a company, I would have the same policy most companies have where you do not bring your pets to work just because you want to. My pet policy would only allow an employee to bring a pet to work if and only they have a disability which requires them to use a pet for their disability. Otherwise, I would not allow any non-disabled employee tobring pets to work because pets are messy, it places an unfair burden on employers to clean up afterwards, pets can become a huge distraction, and I may have employees allergic to pets. I myself have two pets at home which I love but I would not bring them to school. 3. How would you decide the case of Elizabeth Booth, and which laws would you base your decision on? Explain.I would decide the case of Elizabeth Booth by taking her case to the court, where they are very knowledgeable on all the laws pertaining to equal rights for employees and disability laws. After the whole process is finished, I would take the side of the court. Personally I would base my decision on the EEOC law including the disability clause and the genetics clause.Case 2: This case touches on the matter of sexual harassment.Christian SalazarUH ID: 09798091. Evaluate the conduct of Peter Lewiston against the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment.When evaluating Lewiston’s conduct with the EEOC’S definition of sexual harassment, it matches. Sexual harassment refers to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. It also includes offensive remarks about a person’s sex. Peter Lewiston’s type of harassment was a hostile environment which had unwelcomed conduct which was interfering with Gillbury’s job performance and was creating an intimidating, hostile, and offensive work environment for her. 2. Should the intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct be considered when deciding sexual harassment activities? ExplainYes, the intent or motive behind Lewiston’s conduct should be considered when decidingsexual harassment activities. It is ridiculous how starting in May Lewiston approached Gillbury making uncomfortable remarks. A month later in June 7, 2008 sending roses, re-approaching herduring the day asking her out to lunch with her answer clearly being no that they should just remain friends. On the following day June 8, 2008 less than 24 hours sending Lewiston another letter, asking her out to lunch again after being denied the previous day is too much already. Finally with him following her out to her car and physically placing a hand inside her personal carspace is more than enough evidence for a sexual harassment in a hostile environment. 3. If you were the district’s EEOC officer, what would you conclude? What disciplinary action, if any,would you take?As the district’s EEOC officer I would conclude that yes, this case is definitely sexual harassment. From all the evidence I mentioned in question 2 along with the Western Justice Court sending an injunction prohibiting sexual harassment by Lewiston. My conclusion would be to fire him on the grounds of sexual harassment. Another option would be to make him go to mandatory sensitivity classes on sexual harassment, give him a month off or more without pay, and finally relocating him to another city if possible. Overall, the best option would be to fire himor just relocate