Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
branvel23See attachments below...
2 years ago
20
files (9)Source2SexualHarassmentintheWorkplace-Document-GaleeBooks.pdf
SOURCE5SexualHarassment-Document-GaleeBooks.pdf
SOURCE6Office_WorkplaceSettings-Document-GaleeBooks.pdf
- PROMPT.png
- SOURCE1PAGEBusinessLaw-TheEthicalGlobalandDigitalEnvironmentEightteenthEdition.png
- SOURCE1BOOKBusinessLaw-TheEthicalGlobalandDigitalEnvironmentEightteenthEdition.png
- Source4TimesUpMovement-Document-GaleeBooks.pdf
- SOURCE7SexualHarassment_PeerHarassmentinMiddleandHighSchool-Document-GaleeBooks.pdf
- Source3SexualHarassmentintheWorkplace-Document-GaleeBooks.pdf
Source2SexualHarassmentintheWorkplace-Document-GaleeBooks.pdf
Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Author: Linda Tancs Editor: Heather L. Armstrong Date: 2019 From: Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture(Vol. 2. ) Publisher: ABC-Clio Document Type: Topic overview Pages: 2 Content Level: (Level 5)
Full Text:
Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that encompasses unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Although many victims are reluctant to report their experiences, surveys show that it affects more women than men. Prompt reporting helps resolve issues quickly, and workplace training aids in preventing further occurrences.
A federal law known as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits many forms of discrimination, such as sexual harassment. Title VII applies to private employers with fifteen or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies, labor organizations, and the federal government regardless of the number of employees. To be unlawful, conduct must explicitly or implicitly affect an individual’s employment; unreasonably interfere with an individual’s work performance; or create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. In the workplace, actions such as touching colleagues, repeatedly requesting dates, making sexual comments, and using vulgar language are all potentially problematic.
Because of low reporting rates, it is difficult to quantify the experience of sexual harassment in the workplace. Low reporting rates are due to a variety of factors, such as fear of retaliation from employers, concern for the harasser, shame, belief in the futility of the grievance process, or fear of being blamed for the harassment. Reporting is also complicated by varying perceptions of what constitutes sexual harassment. For example, the offensive conduct can take place between members of the same sex. In addition, the harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a colleague, or an outside party. The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct. Unlawful sexual harassment may also occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim. Despite the challenges in determining the prevalence of sexual harassment, studies show that it affects women more than men, with at least one-third of women in the United States experiencing some form of sexual harassment. One in ten men report experiencing it as well, and a quarter of men say they worry about being falsely accused of sexual harassment.
It is important to file a complaint with a supervisor or human resources department promptly to increase the chance of a quick resolution. Once a harassment complaint is filed, it cannot be retracted. An employer is obligated to investigate all complaints, and supervisors are obligated to report any suspected or known harassment. Employees who have filed complaints should continue to perform
their normal work duties and report any retaliation. The retaliation laws are broad and may protect coworkers of the victim as well as witnesses in the investigation.
Prevention is the best tool to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace. Many employers take steps to prevent sexual harassment from occurring by communicating to employees that sexual harassment will not be tolerated. One common method for doing so is by providing a written antiharassment policy to employees, outlining what harassment is, telling all employees that harassment
Page 655
will not be tolerated, and setting out how employees should respond to incidents of harassment. Other methods of dealing with harassment include sexual harassment training and establishing an effective complaint or grievance process offering immediate and appropriate action when an employee complains.
Linda Tancs
See also: Sexual Harassment ; Sexual Harassment in College ; Sexual Harassment in Education .
Further Reading Saguy, A. C. (2003). What is sexual harassment? From Capitol Hill to the Sorbonne (3rd ed.) Oakland: University of California Press.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.) Facts about sexual harassment. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-sex.cfm Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC Source Citation (APA 7th Edition) Tancs, L. (2019). Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. In H. L. Armstrong (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Sex
and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture (Vol. 2, pp. 654-655). Greenwood. https://link-gale-com.mjc.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/CX7554100384/GVRL? u=modestojc_main&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=02b43e62
Gale Document Number: GALE|CX7554100384
SOURCE5SexualHarassment-Document-GaleeBooks.pdf
Sexual Harassment Author: Erik F. Brooks Editors: Kara E. Stooksbury , John M. Scheb, II , and Otis H. Stephens, Jr. Date: 2017 From: Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties, Revised and Expanded(Vol. 3. 2nd ed.) Publisher: ABC-Clio Document Type: Topic overview Pages: 3 Content Level: (Level 5)
Full Text:
Sexual Harassment Sexual harassment has been a point of controversy in American society for some 40 years or more. During the 1970s, sexual harassment began to receive significant attention. It was during this time that both print and broadcast media began to cover this subject and report statistics regarding the sexual harassment of women in the workplace. These statistics raised awareness of the fact that sexual harassment had woven itself into the American social fabric.
The authors of a national survey (conducted in 1976) of 9,000 clerical and career women concluded that 92 percent of these women reported being sexually harassed in the workplace ( Wood 1993 ). Extensive research and academic studies about sexual harassment in the workplace did not occur until the 1980s ( Wood 1993 ). In 1987, findings of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board found that 42 percent of the women employed with the federal government also reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment in the performance of their duties (Edmunds 1987). These workers included women employed in governmental departments dedicated to protecting employees from discrimination. Organizations have grappled with what constitutes sexual harassment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual conduct when such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment” ( United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1985 ).
There are two types of sexual harassment: one is quid pro quo, in which employment decisions such as employee retention and promotion are dependent on
Page 880
sexual favors. In the course of proving his or her case for quid pro quo sexual harassment, a plaintiff should establish that the employer threatened the employee with some form of economic loss. A single sexual advance may constitute harassment if it is linked to granting or denying employment benefits. Also, in regard to cases of quid pro quo harassment, employers are strictly liable for any such behavior initiated by supervisory employees, and if a subordinate submits and then changes his or her mind and refuses, he or she may still bring quid pro quo charges. The other type of sexual harassment claim involves a hostile situation, in which the work environment is uncomfortable or intimidating because of actions such as suggestive comments, touching, leering, or offensive materials on bulletin boards.
A hostile work environment occurs when unwelcome sexual conduct unreasonably interferes with an individual’s job performance or creates a hostile, intimidating, or offensive work environment even though the harassment may not result in tangible economic job consequences. Specifically, the person does not have to lose work, promotion, or pay. An employer may be expected to know about a hostile work environment if there was a complaint to the management or if management failed to establish a policy against sexual harassment.
In Barnes v. Castle (1977), a District of Columbia court of appeals ruled that sexual harassment was illegal based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII classifies sexual harassment in the workplace as discrimination based on gender. The U.S. Supreme Court in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986) set a precedent for deciding future sexual harassment cases and established employer liability for sexual harassment. In Meritor, the Court decided that three elements must be present for an action or environment to constitute sexual harassment: it must be unwelcome; the employer must have knowledge, either demonstrated or imputed; and either job opportunities must be threatened or a hostile environment created. The Court also recognized that sexual harassment is sex-based discrimination.
The Court’s application of a reasonable standard that specifically referred to women became the topic of much debate in Ellison v. Brady (1991). There the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit formally recognized an application of the “reasonable woman” standard announced in Meritor. In subsequent cases, however, some justices have opted to use a reasonable person standard rather than a reasonable woman standard.
Supreme Court decisions indicate that employers are liable for sexual harassment in the workplace unless the victim fails to follow company procedure written into personnel policies, therefore stressing the importance of implementing policies that comply with the standards as provided in Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and its companion case Faragher v. City of Raton (1998). In these cases, the Supreme Court established guidelines for sexual harassment policies that comply with the EEOC standards. Agencies adhere to these guidelines by establishing a strong policy that prohibits sexual harassment, clearly defines behaviors that are considered gender discrimination, identifies which officials to contact in filing a complaint, prescribes how to file a complaint, and specifies a prompt time to complete an investigative procedure. Failing to establish an effective sexual harassment policy is one of the biggest legal mistakes that employers make. Organizations that develop and implement sexual harassment policies in compliance with EEOC guidelines are less likely to find themselves involved in lawsuits. Therefore, these policies may lessen employee turnover and decreases in productivity.
These cases also modified the distinction between quid pro quo claims and hostile environment claims. Thus, these rulings distinguished “between cases in which the plaintiff can prove that sexual harassment resulted in a ‘tangible employment action,’ thereby creating strict vicarious liability for the employer, and hostile environment cases, where the employer has an opportunity to present an affirmative defense” ( Kay and West 2006 ). A tangible employment action was defined, in part, as “the means by which the supervisor brings the official power of the enterprise to bear on subordinates.”
In 2013, the Court clarified the definition of supervisor for Title VII purposes. In Vance v. Ball State University (2013), the Court closely followed the criteria in the 1998 cases by rejecting the argument that a supervisor was anyone who controlled an employee’s day-to-day work activities. Instead, a supervisor must be able to bring about a significant change in employment status or make a decision resulting in a significant change in benefits.
Additionally, in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998), the Court held that Title VII does not require the harasser be of the opposite sex. It is sufficient to be harassed “because of sex” to invoke Title VII.
It is not enough for an organization to establish a strong policy; employees must be educated about the policy. Sexual harassment policies should be written in personnel
Page 881
manuals and distributed to employees. Policy statements regarding gender discrimination should be posted in public places for all employees. There should also be periodic training sessions to remind employees of the organization’s stance against sexual harassment in the workplace.
F. ERIK BROOKS
See also: Civil Rights Act of 1964 ; Employment Discrimination ; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ; Gender-Based Discrimination ; Merit Systems Protection Board
Further Reading Edmunds, Edward. 1988. “Unwelcomed Advances.” Atlanta Magazine (September): 90–93, 120–126.
Kay, Herma Hill, and Martha S. West. 2006. Sex-Based Discrimination: Text, Cases and Materials. 6th ed. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.
Kreps, Gary. 1993. Sexual Harassment: Communication Implications. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1985. “Guidelines on Discrimination because of Sex.” 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1604.11.
Wood, Julia. 1993. Naming and Interpreting Sexual Harassment: A Conceptual Framework for Scholarship. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2017 ABC-CLIO, LLC Source Citation (APA 7th Edition) Brooks, E. F. (2017). Sexual Harassment. In K. E. Stooksbury, J. M. Scheb, II, & O. H. Stephens, Jr.
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties, Revised and Expanded (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 879-881). ABC-CLIO. https://link-gale- com.mjc.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/CX7352900595/GVRL?u=modestojc_main&sid=bookmark- GVRL&xid=958fc9e6
Gale Document Number: GALE|CX7352900595
SOURCE6Office_WorkplaceSettings-Document-GaleeBooks.pdf
Office/Workplace Settings Author: Suman Kakar Editor: Gina Robertiello Date: 2021 From: Sexual Harassment and Misconduct: An Encyclopedia Publisher: ABC-Clio Document Type: Topic overview Pages: 3 Content Level: (Level 4)
Full Text:
Office/Workplace Settings Sexual harassment in the workplace has been around for as long as workplaces themselves. For ages, some employees—both women and men—have endured toxic office environments filled with sexual harassment in the forms of sexual innuendo and comments, unwanted sexual advances, and in some cases even sexual abuse or assault.
The first serious discussions of workplace/office sexual harassment—and about potential reforms to reduce the frequency of such incidents—came in the late 1960s and early 1970s, amid women’s rising workforce participation and burgeoning feminist consciousness. According to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), this behavior violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII applies to employers with fifteen or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations as well as the federal government. However, despite the Civil Rights Act and other legal efforts, its proscription in legal jurisdictions around the world, and through social movements, sexual harassment continues to be experienced by many women and some men in industries of all shapes, sizes, and business sectors.
In “Findings on Workplace Sexual Harassment from the 2018 Empire State Poll,” a report issued by the Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR) School’s Worker Institute, researchers reported that quid pro quo (an exchange of service for something of equal value) workplace sexual harassment impacts about one in ten New York State residents. Social movements such as Time’s Up and #MeToo as well as recent high-profile allegations in the media, government, Congress, and prominent firms have brought the often hidden and not talked about issue
Page 220
of sexual harassment to the forefront. However, it persists despite social awareness.
According to the Center for Employment Equity Report, which was issued in 2018, approximately five million employees are sexually harassed at work every year. The overwhelming majority (99.8 percent) of people who experience sexual harassment at work never file formal charges. Of those who file formal charges, very few (less than fifteen hundred per year), go to court. This report also indicates there is a fear that reporting or filing a case in court can backfire and lead to retaliation or other negative consequences for victims. The report stated that most employers react punitively toward people who file formal sexual harassment charges, with 68 percent of sexual harassment charges including an allegation of employer retaliation. This rate is highest for Black women, and 64 percent of
sexual harassment charges are associated with job loss. The report documents that 68 percent of sexual harassment charges include an allegation of employer retaliation, and 64 percent of sexual harassment charges are associated with threats of job loss. Employer retaliation was reported most often by Black women, while threats of job loss were highest for white women and white men.
Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions made in 1998 regarding sexual harassment changed the landscape of workplace harassment and the laws against sexual harassment. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth both played significant roles in determining how sexual harassment cases are handled today. In the Faragher case, municipal lifeguard Beth Ann Faragher alleged that during her time working near Miami in the late 1980s, her male supervisors sexually harassed and assaulted her and other female lifeguards by groping them, entering the women’s locker room without knocking, asking women to shower with them, and miming oral sex. The court decided that the city was not liable for the harassment or assault, as City Hall had been unaware of the offenses when they were happening. In the case of Burlington Industries, Kimberly Ellerth alleged that a high-ranking executive at her company made comments about her physical appearance and said that he could make her job “very hard or very easy,” implying that Ellerth’s corporate success depended on her willingness to sleep with her boss. Although Ellerth was promoted by her own merit, a lower court decided that she had experienced quid pro quo harassment, even though the threatened retribution never materialized.
Since the #MeToo Movement, there have been some very public examples of sexual harassment in the office setting. Broadcast personality Bill O’Reilly, for example, was ousted from Fox News in April 2017 after multiple sexual harassment allegations against him came to light. The Fox News host was said to have agreed to a $32 million settlement with a former network analyst, in addition to paying, with the help of Fox News, an alleged $13 million to stop five other women from publicly accusing him of harassment.
Matt Lauer was fired from his job as the cohost of NBC’s Today show in late November 2017 after a female subordinate reported inappropriate sexual behavior by him during the 2014 Sochi Olympics. Soon, more women came forward, including one who said he sexually assaulted her in his office. Lauer’s accusers alleged that his harassment continued after the games. The New York Times
Page 221
reported that two more women lodged accusations against Lauer following his dismissal from NBC, which the network confirmed.
Another prominent case concerned UBS Financial, which paid out a massive settlement to a female employee who was sexually harassed in its offices. That case involved Carla Ingraham, who was a senior client service associate at UBS Financial Services in Kansas City, Missouri. Ingraham claimed that in 2003, a male broker called her his “work wife” and made comments about getting “laid” on a specific weekend. The male broker also commented on her physical appearance, conversed about favorite sexual positions, and suggested that she perform oral sex on a client. UBS Financial fired Ingram in 2009, one week after she filed her amended sexual discrimination suit. After Ingraham sued, a state court jury awarded her $10,592,000 in damages, agreeing that she had been sexually harassed and finding that UBS had retaliated against her. A judge reduced the award to $8,439,941, including attorney fees and other expenses, but the award was vacated in January 2012 when attorneys reached a “confidential resolution” of the case.
Suman Kakar
See also: Ailes, Roger ; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ; Faragher v. City of Boca Raton ; Lauer, Matt ; #MeToo Movement ; Quid Pro Quo ; Time’s Up Movement ; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Further Reading Catt, M. 2019. “ILR Study: Workplace Sexual Harassment Impacts 1 in 10 in N.Y.” Cornell Chronicle, February 21. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2019/02/ilr-study-workplace-sexual-harassment-impacts- 1-10-ny .
McCann, C., D. Tomaskovic-Devey, and M. V. Badgett. 2018. “Employer’s Responses to Sexual Harassment.” Center for Employment Equity, December. https://www.umass.edu/employmentequity/employers-responses-sexual-harassment .
McCoy, K. 2017. “Sexual Harassment: Here Are Some of the Biggest Cases.” USA Today, October 25. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/10/25/sexual-harassment-here-some-biggest- cases/791439001/ .
Ortiz, E., and C. Siemaszko. 2017. “NBC News Fires Matt Lauer after Sexual Misconduct Review.” NBC News, November 19. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/sexual-misconduct/nbc-news-fires- today-anchor-matt-lauer-after-sexual-misconduct-n824831 .
Steel, E., and M. S. Schmidt. 2017. “Bill O’Reilly Settled New Harassment Claim, Then Fox Renewed His Contract.” New York Times, October 21. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/business/media/bill- oreilly-sexual-harassment.html .
Waxman, O. B. 2018. “The Surprising Consequences of the Supreme Court Cases That Changed Sexual Harassment Law 20 Years Ago.” Time, June 26. http://time.com/5319966/sexual-harassment- scotus-anniversary/ . Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2021 ABC-CLIO, LLC Source Citation (APA 7th Edition) Kakar, S. (2021). Office/Workplace Settings. In G. Robertiello (Ed.), Sexual Harassment and
Misconduct: An Encyclopedia (pp. 219-221). ABC-CLIO. https://link-gale- com.mjc.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/CX8252400098/GVRL?u=modestojc_main&sid=bookmark- GVRL&xid=0f59f585
Gale Document Number: GALE|CX8252400098
