sexual harassment

View more Law & Legal Issues videos

For more information on sexual harassment, visit Britannica.com.

Sexual harassment is a term used to describe a variety of illegal discriminatory actions—from un-welcome sexual advances to verbal conduct of a sexual nature—that create a hostile or abusive work environment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines sexual harassment as follows: "Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when: 1) Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment. 2) Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals. 3) Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment." But legal experts warn managers and business owners that definitions of sexual harassment extend beyond the above borders. "Most people think that sexual harassment necessarily involves conduct of a sexual nature," wrote Theresa Donahue Egler in HRMagazine. "But sexual harassment includes conduct that is not overtly sexual but is directed at an individual based on his or her gender. Thus, conduct such as profanity and other rude behavior … may give rise to liability so long as it is based on gender."

Some observers believe that small businesses are particularly susceptible to sexual harassment problems. "Small businesses are especially vulnerable because the informal office atmosphere may seem to allow sexual banter and innuendos, and a small business is less likely to have an official sexual harassment policy and training program," wrote Steven C. Bahls and Jane Easter Bahls in Entrepreneur. Savvy small business owners, then, will adopt a proactive stance to make certain that his or her employees know that inappropriate behavior—whether it takes the form of displaying sexually explicit photographs, using offensive language, making suggestive or otherwise inappropriate comments, badgering an employee for dates or other interactions outside the workplace, or suggesting that one gender is inferior to another—will not be tolerated in their company. Indeed, firms that do not do so leave themselves open to financial loss via lawsuits as well as other problems (low morale, employee turnover, absenteeism, etc.) that can ultimately impact financial performance. As EEOC guidelines state, "with respect to conduct between fellow employees, an employer is responsible for acts of sexual harassment in the workplace where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action." "The stakes are high and getting higher," concluded Ellen J. Wagner in Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. "In an increasingly litigious society and in an era of ever-increasing employee rights and employer responsibilities, sexual harassment allegations are particularly hazardous." Nation's Business contributors Robert T. Gray and Donald H. Weiss agreed. "All the signs point to sexual harassment becoming a more complex issue in the courts as well as in the workplace, and employers must be ready to respond accordingly," they wrote. "While that response can be prolonged and even difficult, the experts say that the depth of a company's commitment to preventing such conduct can be determined by one step at the moment of the filing of a complaint. That step: Take it seriously."

Harassment and Employee Rights

Over the past several years, sexual harassment has become a subject of considerable discussion. Previous generations of business owners and managers rarely had to address the issue. Business historians and social observers point to several possible factors for this. Some note that women used to comprise a much smaller component of the workforce, and that various societal pressures may have made them less likely to come forward with complaints. Others point out that many of the legal protections that are now in place against harassment have only developed over the last 30 years. Still other observers contend that the rise in sexual harassment claims simply reflects a general decline in civility in American society. Whatever the reasons, sexual harassment complaints have risen steadily in recent years. In fact, the EEOC reported that from 1990 to 1994, the number of sexual harassment cases that were filed in the United States more than doubled. "Because an agency complaint is a prerequisite to suit under federal and many state laws, these numbers forecast a corresponding increase in sexual harassment lawsuits in the coming years," wrote Egler. "When it is considered that many more potentially explosive situations are quietly resolved (some at substantial cost) before reaching the complaint stage, it is readily apparent that sexual harassment is a risk that requires proactive management."

But small business owners and corporate executives alike need to make sure that in their zeal to protect the legitimate rights of employees not to be harassed in the workplace, they do not trample on the rights of those accused of misbehavior. "While sexual harassment is clearly a pervasive reality, every case needs to be reviewed on its own merit," said Wagner. "Just because harassment is a significant social and corporate problem does not mean it has in fact occurred in a particular instance." Indeed, an employee who is punished or dismissed on the basis of a frivolous sexual harassment claim has the same recourse to the law as the victim of sexual harassment who is left unprotected by indifferent managers/owners. Business owners and managers thus need to consider the rights of all parties involved when investigating sexual harassment complaints.

Changing Demographics of Sexual Harassment Victims

Over the past several years, human resource professionals and business consultants alike have pointed to some fundamental changes in sexual harassment demographics. The overwhelming number of employees who are victims of sexual harassment continue to be women, but increasing numbers of men have found themselves targeted as well. Same-sex harassment charges have been on the rise as well. Observers note that some companies have been slow to treat such complaints as seriously as the more prevalent woman-as-victim, man-as-harasser complaints, with sometimes disastrous financial consequences for the businesses.

Some analysts expect women-as-harasser complaints to continue to rise, as the number of women business owners and executives grows. "Many would say that sexual harassment is nothing but an issue of power—that is, one person exercising power over another and using sex as the tool of power," attorney Gary Oberstein told Industry Week's Michael Verespej. "[Women are now] in a position to see this as a tool, just as men have seen it as a tool for years." Verespej points out, however, that the nature of sexual harassment does seem to vary with the gender of the harasser. "When a male is the victim of harassment by a female, more than 50% of the cases allege a demand for sex—quid pro quo—in order to retain a job or receive a promotion," he reported. "By contrast, less than 15% of the cases in which a female is the victim of harassment by a male is there a demand for sex; the majority allege a hostile work environment."

Developing and Maintaining Sexual Harassment Policies

Ellen Wagner points out in Sexual Harassment in the Workplace that "a well-drafted, carefully thought-out policy statement on sexual harassment can be valuable to an organization in at least three major ways: 1) as an employee relations tool, 2) as basic education for both managers and employees on the subject of sexual harassment, and 3) as a way of minimizing legal liability to the organization in hostile-environment sexual harassment cases…. Not only is such a policy statement evidence of an organization's good-faith effort to provide a work environment free of harassment but, coupled with a proper investigation that successfully ends illegal or inappropriate conduct, it provides a major offensive weapon in employer efforts to demonstrate that all reasonable steps were taken and that they were effective."

Indeed, business consultants universally counsel both small businesses and multinational corporations to establish formal written policies that make it explicitly clear that no forms of sexual harassment will be tolerated. Some companies prefer to disseminate this information as part of their larger general policy statements because of their sensitivity to giving extra attention to a sometimes awkward subject. But others believe that doing so can have the effect of burying the company's sexual harassment policies under the weight of all its other statements. These observers claim that dissemination of a separate policy statement not only better informs employees of the policy itself, but also underlines the company's serious approach to the subject.

Whether a business chooses to distribute its policies on sexual harassment via general information sources (employee handbook) or separate statements, its policies should list all the various forms that sexual harassment can take (sexually loaded "compliments," sexual advances, denigration of a person's gender, etc.) and explain how the company proceeds when confronted with a sexual harassment complaint. The policy statement should also discuss possible disciplinary consequences for workers who are found guilty of engaging in harassment.

Other steps that businesses can take to establish an harassment-free workplace include: establishing internal procedures that address complaints promptly and thoroughly; establishing training programs that educate workers—and especially managers, supervisors, and other people wielding power—about components of sexual harassment and their responsibilities when exposed to such behavior; establishing alternative routes for workers to lodge complaints (in instances where his or her supervisor is the alleged harasser, for instance).

Building a Comprehensive Policy

Legal experts warn businesses that they need to make certain that their policies reflect a true understanding of the legal responsibilities of the employer, and a full recognition of the multitude of forms that sexual harassment can take. They point out that some companies have put together policies that, while sensible and effective in some or even most areas, are flawed in other areas, either because their policies did not adequately cover all the ways in which sexual harassment can occur, or because their understanding of sexual harassment was incomplete from the outset. For example, many people have long operated under the misconception that for sexual harassment to occur, the harasser must have a bad intent. The reality, however, is that "what may be viewed as perfectly harmless by most men, may be viewed as offensive by most women," wrote Egler. "In recognition of gender differences in perception, the courts have developed a new standard for analyzing claims of sexual harassment. In lieu of the traditional gender-neutral reasonable person standard, which is thought to be biased toward the male viewpoint, sexual harassment claims are analyzed in many jurisdictions from the perspective of a reasonable person of the same sex."

Another important factor that is not always sufficiently appreciated by employers is that they can be held liable for harassing conduct by a third party such as a customer or vendor. Egler explained that "even though these people are not employed by, and thus, not under the direction and control of the employer, the employer can be held responsible for harassment of its employees by such third parties." This mostly occurs in instances where the employer does not respond to such situations when they are brought to their attention. Finally, Egler pointed out that some companies have been slow to recognize that "what appears to be a consensual relationship by both parties may be regarded by the subordinate as an unwelcome obligation necessary for the protection of his or her job, whether or not this is actually the case."

Investigating Sexual Harassment Complaints

Companies must investigate every sexual harassment complaint seriously and thoroughly, and take action accordingly. A key foundation of this process is to make certain that the person who will investigate the complaint has credibility with the workforce. Ideally, the individual will be knowledgeable about the legal dimensions of sexual harassments, experienced in handling employee issues, familiar with the organization's policies, and socially and organizationally distant from both the alleged victim and the alleged harasser (the investigator should not be friends with the alleged victim, nor directly report to the alleged harasser, or vice versa). With smaller companies, however, it can be more difficult to adhere to such guidelines. If a small business owner has only four employees, and two of them become embroiled in an harassment case, finding an investigator with the above qualities is next to impossible. The owner may be tempted to look into the complaint him or herself in such instances, but business advisors often counsel against this. Instead, they recommend that the owner turn to an outside counsel or external consultant to pursue the complaint.

Whether the person doing the investigating is a third party, an employee, or the owner of the business, he or she should have a focused, carefully thought out investigation plan designed to settle the issue in as timely a fashion as possible. This typically includes a review of relevant organizational records, including complainant's personnel file, alleged harasser's personnel file, performance reviews, and promotional and salary records. Such reviews can turn up everything from prior disciplinary warnings aimed at the accused to possibly relevant indications that the involved parties had previously competed against one another for promotions or other job opportunities. Such data may well be completely irrelevant to the legitimacy of the complaint, but it is the investigator's duty to check into all possible aspects of the complaint.

Every claim should be treated seriously, no matter how unusual or seemingly frivolous it might first appear, until an informed decision can be made. Conversely, an investigator should also suspend judgment on complaints that seem obviously legitimate until a thorough investigation has been completed. As Wagner remarked, "when sexual harassment is alleged, defamation is never very far away…. Since sexual harassment investigations almost always involve matters that might go to the heart of a person's reputation and good name, attention must be paid to minimizing the risks of defamation throughout the investigation and once it is concluded."

The first step in an investigation usually involves an in-depth interview of the complainant. Areas that should be pursued during this interview include the cultural background of the complainant (if dramatically different from that of the accused), a detailed reconstruction of the incident(s) that prompted the complaint, the context and circumstances in which it occurred, the involved parties' prior relationship (if any), the nature of the allegations against each individual in instances where incidents involved the participation of more than one person (common in hostile workplace complaints), and the complainant's expectations regarding how the alleged offender should be disciplined.

The investigation then turns to getting the accused's account of events. This step has different nuances, depending on whether the alleged harasser is a supervisor, a coworker, or a third party such as a customer, but basically this part of the investigation aims to secure the accused's perspective. In some instances, the accused may appear angry or shocked when confronted with a sexual harassment charge, so the investigator needs to allow time for the return of some measure of emotional equilibrium. When the initial reaction has subsided, wrote Wagner, the investigator should ask the worker to relate "what he believed happened during the incidents the complainant has cited. Allow him to relate his understanding of the situation through once, then return to it for specific, step-by-step review. As with the complainant, make sure the discussion is specific and detailed enough to provide the information you need to make an informed judgment later on. Note dates, times, places, circumstances, dress, words exchanged, as well as the specifics of the alleged acts." Again, issues such as prevailing work environment, prior relationships, etc. should be discussed.

Once the investigator has finished gathering information from the principal parties, he or she should then turn to possible witnesses. These could range from coworkers who were present when the alleged incident took place to those who have relevant information on either or both of the parties involved. The investigator should not be concerned with unsubstantiated rumors at this juncture; rather, he or she should concentrate on gathering factual data. This can be a very important part of the investigation, for accusations that turn into basic "he said, she said" disputes can be profoundly difficult for employers to resolve. "Immediate action may be difficult when an employer is faced with unsubstantiated accusation on one side and a categorical denial on the other," wrote Gray and Weiss. But experts point out that workplace behavior often can be corroborated by other staffers. Employers need to interview these witnesses carefully, however. "You must assess the credibility and believability of all persons corroborating some aspect of the complainant's or accused's contention," confirmed Wagner. "Consider the issue of witness motivation and the relationship between each witness and the individual whose word is being corroborated. Make sure you understand what each witness might stand to gain from the situation, as well as what genuine feelings are at work here." Witnesses also need to understand that the subject should not be discussed with coworkers or other individuals; sexual harassment charges are both serious and sensitive, and they should be regarded as such. Human resources experts also recommend that investigators not rely wholly on interviews. Ideally, the investigator should also secure written statements from all parties— complainant, accused, and witnesses—as part of this information-gathering process.

Once the investigation into the sexual harassment complaint has been completed, corrective action (if any) needs to be implemented. When corrective action is warranted, it can range from counseling to transfer to dismissal. The key factors that usually determine the severity of the corrective action are: 1) the nature of the offense, 2) the desires of the complainant, and3) the impact that the incident had on the workplace as a whole.

Harassment of the Self-Employed

Self-employed individuals who work as independent contractors enjoy fewer legal protections from sexual harassment at the hands of clients. Experts recommend that self-employed people confronted with such unpleasantness react strongly and decisively. They should make it immediately clear that the harassment (which in these situations typically takes the form of unwanted sexual advances) is unwelcome, and that they would prefer to keep their association with their client a professional one. If this line of defense does not work, the self-employed worker may wish to consult an attorney about their state's tort law, which regulates conduct between people and provides monetary damages. In addition, national women's organizations can often provide guidance and legal assistance in these matters.

Further Reading:

Bahls, Steven C., and Jane Easter Bahls. "Hands-Off Policy." Entrepreneur. July 1997.

Buhler, Patricia M. "The Manager's Role in Preventing Sexual Harassment." Supervision. April 1999.

Egler, Theresa Donahue. "Five Myths About Sexual Harassment." HRMagazine. January 1995.

"Facts About Sexual Harassment." Washington: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1997.

Gray, Robert T., and Donald H. Weiss. "How to Deal with Sexual Harassment." Nation's Business. December 1991.

Lawlor, Julie. "Stepping Over the Line." Sales and Marketing Management. October 1995.

Petrocelli, William, and Barbara Kate Repa. Sexual Harassment on the Job: What It Is and How to Stop It. 4th ed. Nolo Press, 1998.

Risser, Rita. "Sexual Harassment Training: Truth and Consequences." Training and Development. August 1999.

Verespej, Michael J. "New Age Sexual Harassment: An Increasing Number of Victims are Men or Same-Gender Workers." Industry Week. May 15, 1995.

Wagner, Ellen J. Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: How to Prevent, Investigate, and Resolve Problems in Your Organization. AMACOM, 1992.

See also: Gender Discrimination

In the early 1990s, sexual harassment in the military made headlines as decades of mistreatment of military women became known. The initial spotlight followed the public revelation of the events of the U.S. Navy's annual Tailhook Convention at the Las Vegas Hilton in September 1991. Hundreds of navy and Marine aviators attended the convention, where male aviators assaulted their female colleagues and both men and women took part in inappropriate activities. Naval leadership did not respond to a formal complaint about the event, which only worsened its reputation when the abuses were exposed in the national media. The ripple effects of Tailhook were felt for years within the navy, until another event overtook the public's attention.

In November 1996, allegations of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and fraternization on the part of drill sergeants at the army's Aberdeen Proving Ground training facility in Maryland rekindled public outrage. Tailhook, Aberdeen, and numerous other incidents brought considerable media attention to gender relations in the military. This, in turn, led to commissioned studies, panels, and congressional hearings on the topics of sexual harassment and, more generally, the role of women in the military.

As revised in 1995, the Department of Defense defines sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination that involves unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when (a) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of a person's job, pay, or career; (b) submission to or rejection of such conduct by a person is used as a basis for career or employment decisions affecting that person; or (c) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

People commonly use the term sexual harassment to refer to an even wider range of behaviors, including sexual discrimination, sexual assault, and gender harassment. The concept of sexual harassment is particularly problematic because what offends one individual may not faze another. Research has shown that people are more likely to define a behavior as sexual harassment if it comes from someone in a position of power over them, or if it comes from someone of a different race or class background.

In an article entitled “How Women Handle Sexual Harassment: A Literature Review,” published in Sociology and Social Research (1989), James E. Gruber classified victims' individual responses to harassment into four categories: avoidance of the harasser or the place of harassment; defusion of the incident, such as making a joke of the issue or discussing it only with friends; negotiation, which includes telling the harasser that his behavior is offensive and asking him to stop; and confrontation, in which women use more forceful language and may issue an ultimatum or threat.

At the organizational level, military personnel have been reluctant to file formal complaints of sexual harassment for a number of reasons: they do not believe the organization will respond; they believe there will be a “backlash” against them for filing a complaint; they believe the incident was minor and dealt with satisfactorily on the individual level; they are afraid that a minor complaint will be blown up into a major public issue; or there were no witnesses and they do not believe they will win a “he‐said, she‐said” case. In the 1990s, as harassment received more publicity and women's complaints were taken more seriously, many military men became afraid that they might be falsely accused. The degree to which this actually occurs, however, has not yet been measured.

The targets of sexual harassment can suffer a number of negative effects: poor physical and mental health, drug or alcohol abuse, work dissatisfaction, alienation from coworkers, tardiness and absenteeism, decreased work performance and poor evaluations, job loss or career disruption, and the costs of legal fees, health care, and counseling.

In some ways, the military environment fosters sexual harassment. Military culture has traditionally emphasized aggression and the masculine role, and many of the men who join hold traditional beliefs about gender. Moreover, women have always been and are still a small and very visible minority, historically excluded from some of the most powerful and prestigious military roles. At the same time, the military is a large‐scale formal organization with explicit methods for communicating and enforcing its rules and regulations. Its members are trained to be highly disciplined and to uphold a high moral code. Therefore, the military might also be the workplace most able to stamp out sexual harassment, much as it was more successful than the civilian world in integrating racial minorities.

Studies of sexual harassment rates in the civilian workforce typically find that about 50 percent of women have been harassed at work, although some organizations' rates are considerably higher. Rates in the military have been measured at similar levels—noteworthy because soldiers live and work together twenty‐four hours a day, seven days a week, and see each other not only “on the job” but in dining facilities, in the gym, in the barracks, and in the base shops and clubs. Harassment rates tend to be higher in the ground combat services—the Marines and the army—and lowest in the air force, which is more technically oriented, has the highest percentage of women overall, the highest percentage of women officers, and the greatest percentage of positions open to military women.

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (1996), a synthesis of the literature, reports the estimated cost of sexual harassment to the U.S. Army in 1988 to be $533 million (in 1993 dollars). These lost funds derive from reduced productivity; absenteeism; separation, transfer, and replacement of harassers and/or victims; and other miscellaneous costs. The estimate does not account for the expenses of litigation or medical and counseling services.

Because women are not likely to be banned from serving in the armed forces ever again, and because their numbers are increasing under the public's watchful eye, sexual harassment will have to be dealt with effectively by the military. Eliminating the abusive treatment of any soldier will reduce military costs and assist soldiers in maximizing their ability to fight and win wars.

[See also Gender: Female Identity and the Military; Gender and War.]

Bibliography

• Barbara A. Gutek, Sex and the Workplace: The Impact of Sexual Behavior and Harassment on Women, Men, and Organizations, 1985.
• Lisa D. Bastian, Anita R. Lancaster, and Heidi E. Reyst, Department of Defense 1995 Sexual Harassment Survey, 1995.
• Defense Equal Opportunity Council, Report of the Task Force on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment, Vols. I and II, 1995.
• Margaret S. Stockdale, ed., Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, 1996.
• Laura L. Miller, Not Just Weapons of the Weak: Gender Harassment as a Form of Protest for Army Men, Social Psychology Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 1 (March 1997), pp. 32–51.
• Richard J. Harris and Juanita M. Firestone, Subtle Sexism in the U.S. Military, in Subtle Sexism, ed. Nijole V. Benokraitis, 1997.
• United States Department of the Army, The Secretary of the Army's Senior Review Panel Report on Sexual Harassment, Vols. I and II, 1997

The statutory basis for the prohibition against sexual harassment is Title VII, which prohibits employers from hiring, firing, or otherwise discriminating in terms and conditions of employment on the basis of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Sexual harassment claims are divided into two categories: quid pro quo and hostile workplace environment. Quid pro quo harassment occurs when an employer or supervisor takes tangible employment action against an employee because of the employee's unwillingness to provide sexual favors. The more controversial hostile workplace environment claims were initially recognized by the Supreme Court in Meritor Savings Bank, SFB v. Vinson (1986). In that case, the Supreme Court interpreted an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulation, 29 CFR 1604.11(a) (1985), which defined sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” The court ruled that to be actionable, the harassment must be severe enough to alter the employee's conditions of employment, creating what has become known as a “hostile environment.”

Subsequently, in Teresa Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1994), the Court clarified the previous ruling by explaining that the existence of a hostile environment can be determined “only by looking at all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance” (p. 369).

One issue that initially caused confusion was whether an employer could be held liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor when the employee suffered no tangible economic loss. In companion decisions in Ellerth v. Burlington and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998), the high court ruled that an employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee. However, when no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability by showing that (a) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior and (b) the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. No affirmative defense is available, however, when the supervisor's harassment culminates in a tangible employment action.

One final controversial matter the Supreme Court had to resolve was whether one could sexually harass someone of the same sex. Initially, same‐sex harassment was not considered sexual harassment, but, in the case of Joseph Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Service (1998), the Supreme Court broadened the interpretation of the law and held that nothing in the act bars a cause simply because the plaintiff and defendant are members of the same sex. The critical issue, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, was “whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed” (p. 78).

— Nancy K. Kubasek

Sexual Harassment is generally understood to be the attempt to influence, dominate, or injure an individual or a class of individuals through sexually inflected or sexually charged behaviors or environmental conditions. Currently, sexual harassment charges have achieved legal standing in the context of work, housing, and educational settings. Alleged harassers often proclaim their innocence by asserting that their intentions are amiable, innocuous, collegial, flattering, or humorous and have been misconstrued by accusers (victims) and observers. Over the last thirty years, the definition of sexual harassment and its standing in law and in educational and workplace regulation have become flash points for individuals and organizations contending over the impact of feminist ideologies on their own philosophies, rights, and behaviors.

Although "sexual harassment" is a recently formulated concept, using sex to establish and maintain power and status has a long history. Harassment of domestic and industrial female employees by male supervisors has plentiful, though sometimes veiled, documentation through workingwomen's narratives and court records. White men's power to rape, impregnate, and otherwise sexually control black women was a pillar of American slavery. The sexual exploitation, domination, and interpretation of African Americans by whites continued beyond slavery. A notable variant of these patterns was the frequent lynchings in the post–Civil War South; mobs often justified their extralegal actions by alleging that a black man had raped or sexually offended a white woman.

Sexual harassment emerged as a classification of certain patterns of behavior, and of pervasive environmental conditions, in the late 1960s and 1970s, with the women's rights movement and the extension of federal civil rights legislation to include sex as a protected class. Legal statistics and anecdotal evidence confirm what most theory addresses, from varying perspectives: harassers are usually men, while victims or targets are usually women. This pattern reflects prevalent social power relations. But as a way of establishing or affirming dominance over another person through intimidation and embarrassment, sexual harassment has been practiced by anybody on anybody.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 laid the basis for legal claims of sexual harassment by prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sex. After earlier lawsuits failed to establish sexual harassment as a variety of sex discrimination, several court decisions in the mid-1970s established a legal interpretation of quid pro quo ("this for that," or trading "favors") sexual harassment. In Williams v. Saxbe (1976), a Washington, D.C., court used Title VII to recognize quid pro quo sexual harassment as sex discrimination, on the grounds that sexual advances by a male supervisor to a female employee would constitute artificial barriers to employment placed before one gender and not the other. In Alexander v. Yale University (1977), a Connecticut court recognized quid pro quo sexual harassment as sex discrimination in education. Brownv. City of Gutherie (1980) and Bundy v. Jackson (1981) recognized another form of sexual harassment, the "hostile work environment." The Eleventh Circuit Court's decision in Henson v. City of Dundee (1982) elaborated this trend by delineating the conditions a plaintiff must establish to prove a hostile work environment, and the Supreme Court in Meritor Savings Bank v. Mechelle Vinson (1986) adopted these standards and affirmed that to gain a favorable decision the plaintiff need not prove that she lost economic benefits associated with the harassment.

The Meritor decision was a landmark in several ways. First, plaintiff Mechelle Vinson's case was argued by Patricia J. Barry, joined by Catharine A. MacKinnon, the author of Sexual Harassment of Working Women (1979), in which MacKinnon argued that the "hostile work environment" was often in effect a prelude to "quid pro quo" harassment. In this scenario, women who tired of "hostile work environment" sexual advances resisted or protested, which led to "quid pro quo" threats to their jobs or work conditions. Secondly, the Rehnquist Court unanimously upheld the favorable appeals court decision. Rehnquist's opinion cited previous interpretations of Title VII and the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) in regard to eliminating workplace differentials between men and women. The Court also found that whether the victim acquiesced in sexual intercourse was irrelevant to the district court's finding against her claim of "hostile environment," since that claim turned on whether the sexual advances were in fact "unwelcome."

The early 1990s brought a number of public, contentious, and soon infamous accusations of sexual harassment, largely among federal employees. In 1991, the courts developed new definitions of the content and possible victims of sexual harassment. In Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, the Sixth Circuit Court ruled that pictures displayed in the workplace need not be "pornography" to create a hostile or offensive work environment; a pose calling attention to private parts of the body was sufficient. Ellison v. Brady (1991) adopted the "reasonable woman" standard in recognition that women's and men's perspectives might differ on what constituted pervasive harassment. And in Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite, the Eighth Circuit Court decided positively in a class action sexual harassment suit brought by women miners, although meager damages were awarded, and the National Organization for Women filed an amicus brief during the appeal, arguing that the judge showed bias against women and pushing for higher punitive damages. The parties eventually reached a settlement.

In June 1991, Thurgood Marshall, until that time the first and only black Supreme Court justice, announced his retirement, which initiated a string of events that would profoundly affect dialogue and litigation regarding sexual harassment. President George Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, former head of the EEOC (created in 1964 to administer Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) and a federal judge for two years, to replace Marshall. Thomas's nomination was controversial because of his inexperience on the bench, his reluctance to explain apparent discrepancies in his statements on divisive social issues, and liberals' anger at Bush's disingenuous replacement of a black liberal by a black conservative. An evenly split Senate Judiciary Committee forwarded Thomas's nomination to the Senate floor on 27 September. In early October, as Senate proceedings began, Anita Hill, an African American law professor at the University of Oklahoma, filed a confidential affidavit accusing Thomas of sexual harassment ten years earlier, when he was her supervisor at the Department of Education and then at the EEOC. After the initial revelation, Judiciary Committee hearings were reopened in what Thomas would call, in his closing statement, a "high-tech lynching" of him, and what contemporary and subsequent commentators have analyzed as an extended and humiliating challenge to the possibility that Anita Hill might be telling the truth.

Thomas's confirmation undoubtedly played a role in the 62 percent increase in EEOC sexual harassment complaints between 1991 and 1992, and the significant increase in women running for political office in 1992. Winners included six senators, twenty-nine representatives, and more than a thousand local officials and representatives. Four male U.S. senators (Adams, Packwood, Inouye, and Durenberger) were accused of sexual harassment. In 1993, the U.S. Navy issued a final report of its investigation of the so-called Tailhook scandal, the egregious harassment and abuse of eighty-one women and seven men officers by more than a hundred of their fellow naval aviation officers at the Tailhook Association convention two years earlier. Seven officers were disciplined, Secretary of the Navy Garrett resigned over the episode, and the assistant chief of naval operations retired at reduced rank.

Educational settings from elementary school through graduate programs became another battleground over definitions of sexual harassment. In their book The Lecherous Professor (1984), Billie Wright Dziech and Linda Weiner ventured a portrait of the power imbalances and gender ideologies that created the context for sexual harassment of female students by male professors. In 1993 the American Association of University Women sponsored a survey of more than a thousand high school students that found that 85 percent of girls, and 76 percent of boys, reported being sexually harassed in school. In 1992 the Supreme Court held that students could hold their schools liable for monetary damages for sexual harassment under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools). In Doe v. Petaluma (1994) a California federal court asserted that the school could be held liable for peer-to-peer sexual harassment if the school had notice of the harassment and failed to act. In the same year, however, the New Hampshire District Court ordered the University of New Hampshire to reinstate a tenured professor fired for sexual harassment under the university's guidelines (J. Donald Silva v. the University of New Hampshire). Public responses to the case, which originated with students offended by a professor's use of sexually explicit imagery to teach rhetoric, typify the impassioned rhetoric sparked by the topic of sexual harassment. Anthony Lewis, the liberal columnist for the New York Times, adjured Americans to "grow up" and stop resorting to the law to protect their tender sensibilities. Other less prominent commentators hailed the decision as a victory for beleaguered free speech against the massed forces of political correctness.

As American society became more egalitarian, and at the same time certain influential interests continued to resist gender-based power analyses, dispassionate studies of the effects of harassment on men and boy victims, as well as women and girl victims, began to emerge; a salient example is Billie Wright Dziech's chapter on "Male Students: The Invisible Casualties" in Sexual Harassment in Higher Education (1998). The Court kept pace with this trend in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998), which upheld a plaintiff's right to seek damages for same-sex sexual harassment, holding that the prohibition of discrimination "because of sex" can apply to men as well as women.

Bibliography

Crouch, Margaret A. Thinking about Sexual Harassment: A Guide for the Perplexed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Dziech, Billie Wright, and Michael W. Hawkins. Sexual Harassment in Higher Education: Reflections and New Perspectives. New York: Garland, 1998.

Hartel, Lynda Jones, and Helena M. VonVille. Sexual Harassment: A Selected, Annotated Bibliography. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1995.

Wyatt, Nancy. "Information on Sexual Harassment." Available from http://www.de.psu.edu/harassment/.

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that occurs in the workplace. Persons who are the victims of sexual harassment may sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.), which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace.

The federal courts did not recognize sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination until the 1970s, because the problem originally was perceived as isolated incidents of flirtation in the workplace. Employers are now aware that they can be sued by the victims of workplace sexual harassment. The accusations of sexual harassment made by Anita F. Hill against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas during his 1991 confirmation hearings also raised societal consciousness about this issue.

Courts and employers generally use the definition of sexual harassment contained in the guidelines of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This language has also formed the basis for most state laws prohibiting sexual harassment. The guidelines say:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment. (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980])

A key part of the definition is the use of the word unwelcome. Unwelcome or uninvited conduct or communication of a sexual nature is prohibited; welcome or invited actions or words are not unlawful. Sexual or romantic interaction between consenting people at work may be offensive to observers or may violate company policy, but it is not sexual harassment.

The courts have generally concluded that a victim need not say or do a particular thing to indicate unwelcomeness. Instead, a court will review all of the circumstances to determine whether it was reasonably clear to the harasser that the conduct was unwelcome. The courts have recognized that victims may be afraid to express their discomfort if the harasser is their boss or is physically intimidating. Victims may be coerced into going along with sexual talk or activities because they believe they will be pun ished or fired if they protest. Consent can be given to a relationship and then withdrawn when the relationship ends. Once it is withdrawn, continued romantic or sexual words or actions are not protected by the past relationship and may be sexual harassment.

The law prohibits unwelcome "sexual" conduct and words or actions "of a sexual nature." Some conduct, such as hugging, may be sexual or nonsexual and must be evaluated in context. Sexual harassment may be physical, such as kissing, hugging, pinching, patting, grabbing, blocking the victim's path, leering or staring, or standing very close to the victim. It may also be verbal, which may be oral or written and could include requests or demands for dates or sex, sexual jokes, comments about the victim's body or clothing, whistles, catcalls, or comments or questions about the victim's or harasser's social life or sexual life. Sexual harassment may also be visual, such as cartoons, pictures, or objects of a sexual nature.

The laws against sexual harassment are violated when "submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of . . . employment." This language refers to what is sometimes called quid pro quo sexual harassment, in which a victim's hire, job security, pay, receipt of benefits, or status depends on her or his response to a superior's sexual overtures, comments, or actions. The quid pro quo may be direct, as when a superior explicitly demands sexual favors and threatens firing if the demands are not met, or it may be indirect, as when a superior suggests that employment success depends on "personality" or "friendship" rather than competence.

Sexual harassment also occurs when sexual conduct or communication "unreasonably interfer[es] with an individual's work performance." Tangible loss of pay, benefits, or the job itself is not required for sexual harassment to be claimed and proven. Generally, occurrences must be significant or repeated or both for substantial interference to be established.

Unreasonable interference can occur between coworkers of equal status as well as between superiors and subordinates. The employer of the coworker may be legally liable for such harassment if the employer knows or should know about it and fails to take timely and appropriate responsive action.

The most far-reaching part of the EEOC definition is that dealing with a hostile or offensive working environment. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the concept of a hostile work environment as actionable under the 1964 Civil Rights Act in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 106 S. Ct. 2399, 91 L. Ed. 49 (1986). The Court rejected a narrow reading of the statute, under which an employer could not be held liable for sexual harassment unless the employee's salary and promotions were affected by the actions.

In the Vinson case, plaintiff Mechelle Vinson, an employee of Meritor Savings Bank, claimed that her male supervisor, Sidney Taylor, had sexually harassed her. Taylor made repeated demands for sexual favors, and the pair engaged in sexual relations at least forty times. Vinson testified that she engaged in sexual relations because she feared losing her job if she refused. The harassment stopped after Vinson began a steady relationship with a boyfriend. One year later, Taylor fired Vinson for excessive use of medical leave. Although the bank had a procedure for reporting harassment, Vinson had not used it because it required her to report the alleged offenses to her supervisor — Taylor.

Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the Court, established several basic principles for analyzing hostile environment cases. First, for sexual harassment to be actionable, it must be severe enough to change the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment. Here, Rehnquist implied that isolated occurrences of harassment (such as the telling of a dirty joke or the display of a sexually explicit photograph) would not constitute a hostile work environment.

Second, Rehnquist made clear that there is a difference between voluntary behavior and welcome behavior. Noting that Vinson and Taylor's sexual relations were voluntary, Rehnquist rejected the conclusion that Vinson's willingness constituted a defense to sexual harassment. The critical issue was whether the sexual advances were welcome. If sexual advances are unwelcome, the inequality of power between a supervisor and subordinate strongly suggests that the employee engages in sexual relations out of fear.

Third, Rehnquist held that courts must view the totality of the circumstances when deciding the issue of welcomeness. In Vinson, however, the Court did not address the question of whose perspective should be used in determining whether certain behavior so substantially changes the work environment that it becomes abusive: should the standard be that of a reasonable man, a reasonable woman, or a reasonable person?

In Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, 760 F. Supp. 1486 (M.D. Fla. 1991), federal district judge Howell Melton applied the reasonable woman test to determine if the work environment was abusive to women. He held that a reasonable woman, exposed to the pictures of nude or partially nude women that were posted in the workplace, and to the sexually demeaning remarks and jokes by male workers, would find that the work environment at the shipyards was abusive. The totality of the circumstances would lead a reasonable woman to these conclusions.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals echoed this reasoning in Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (1991). In Ellison, the court rejected the reasonable person standard in favor of the reasonable woman standard. The court believed that using the reasonable person standard would risk enforcing the prevailing level of discrimination because that standard would be male biased.

Even with the acceptance of the reasonable woman standard by the courts, the diversity of outcomes in harassment claims created confusion as to what constitutes harassment. In Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17, 114 S. Ct. 367, 126 L. Ed. 295 (1993), the Supreme Court attempted to clarify this issue. Teresa Harris had filed a discrimination claim based on the behavior of the company president, Charles Hardy. Hardy had insulted Harris and other women with demeaning references to their gender and with unwanted sexual innuendo.

The district court ruled that although Hardy's comments were sufficiently offensive to cause discomfort for a reasonable woman, they did not rise to the level of interfering with that woman's work performance. The court also held that Harris had not been injured by the comments.

The Supreme Court overruled the lower court, holding that courts must not focus their inquiry on concrete psychological harm, which is not required by title VII of the Civil Rights Act. To maintain such a requirement would force employees to submit to discriminatory behavior until they were completely broken by it. So long as the workplace environment would reasonably be perceived as hostile or abusive, it did not need also to be psychologically injurious.

Thus, the plaintiff in a hostile work environment case must show that sexually harassing behavior is more than occasional, but need not document an abusive environment that causes actual psychological injury. The courts recognize that a hostile work environment will detract from employees' job performance, discourage employees from remaining in their position, and keep employees from advancing in their career. Title VII's guiding rule of workplace equality requires that employers prevent a hostile work environment.

Many employers, realizing the potential liability arising from hostile work environment complaints, have sought to prevent the occurrence of sexual harassment. A first step is determining if a problem exists. Some companies conduct informal surveys of their employees concerning sexual harassment. In addition, employers often inspect the workplace for objectionable material, such as photographs of nude people or insensitive or explicit jokes with sexual connotations.

Employers typically include a policy against sexual harassment in personnel policies or employee handbooks. These policies use the EEOC definition of prohibited conduct as a guideline. The prohibited conduct must be stated in an understandable way.

A complaint procedure should also be part of the policy. Employers should recognize that a prompt and thorough investigation of a complaint, followed by appropriate disciplinary action, is the wisest course. These procedures also should specify to whom a victim of harassment can complain if the victim's supervisor is the alleged harasser.

Companies also routinely train supervisors to recognize sexual harassment. Finally, some employers provide sexual harassment training for all their employees as a way of trying to improve workplace culture and behavior.

See: employment law; women's rights.

In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the definition of sexual harassment formulated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as follows: unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting such individual (both quid pro quo harassment), or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment (condition of work harassment).

• Attitudes and Behavior - sexual harassment: unwanted advances and persistent pestering for sexual favors, esp. by person in position of authority such as employer

Sex and the law
Social issues
Age of consent · Antisexualism Censorship · Essentialism Ethics · Homophobia Miscegenation (interracial relations) Norms · Objectification Pedophilia · Pornography · Public morality Red-light district Reproductive rights Same-sex marriage Slavery · Violence Striptease
Specific offences (May vary according to jurisdiction)
Adultery · Buggery Child grooming · Child pornography Child prostitution · Circumcision Criminal transmission of HIV Deviant sexual intercourse Female genital mutilation Incest · Pimping Prostitution (forced) Public indecency Rape (statutory · marital) · Seduction Sexting · Sexual abuse (child) Sexual assault · Sexual harassment Sodomy · UK Section 63 (2008) Zoophilia
Portals
Sexuality · Criminal justice · Law
v d e

Sexual harassment is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.^[1] In most modern legal contexts sexual harassment is illegal. As defined by EEOC, "It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.^[2] It includes a range of behavior from seemingly mild^{[dubious – discuss]} transgressions and annoyances to actual sexual abuse or sexual assault.^[3] Sexual harassment is a form of illegal employment discrimination in many countries, and is a form of abuse (sexual and psychological) and bullying. For many businesses and other organizations, preventing sexual harassment, and defending employees from sexual harassment charges, have become key goals of legal decision-making.

Contents 1 Early history of the use of the term 2 Harassment situations 3 Varied behaviors 3.1 Behavioral classes 4 Retaliation and backlash 5 Effects of sexual harassment and the (often) accompanying retaliation 5.1 Common effects on the victims 5.2 Effects of sexual harassment on organizations 6 Prevention 7 The effect of the organization on sexual harassment 8 Evolution of sexual harassment law 8.1 United States 8.1.1 Workplace 8.1.2 Education 8.2 Evolution of sexual harassment law in other jurisdictions 9 Varied legal guidelines and definitions 9.1 Australia 9.2 Czech Republic 9.3 Denmark 9.4 France 9.5 India 9.6 Israel 9.7 Pakistan 9.8 Philippines 9.9 Poland 9.10 Russia 9.11 Switzerland 9.12 United Kingdom 9.13 United States 9.13.1 EEOC Definition 9.13.1.1 Quid pro quo sexual harassment 9.13.1.2 Hostile environment sexual harassment 9.13.1.3 Retaliation 10 Debates 11 See also 12 References 13 For further reading 14 Sexual harassment in media and literature 15 Notes 16 External links

Early history of the use of the term

The term sexual harassment was used in 1973 in a report to the then President and Chancellor of MIT about various forms of gender issues. (See Saturn's Rings, 1974). Rowe has stated that she believes she was not the first to use the term, since sexual harassment was being discussed in women's groups in Massachusetts in the early 1970s, but that MIT may have been the first or one of the first large organizations to discuss the topic (in the MIT Academic Council), and to develop relevant policies and procedures. MIT at the time also recognized the injuries caused by racial harassment and the harassment of women of color which may be both racial and sexual. The President of MIT also stated that harassment (and favoritism) are antithetical to the mission of a university as well as intolerable for individuals.

In the book In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution (1999), journalist Susan Brownmiller quotes the Cornell activists who in 1975 thought they had coined the term sexual harassment: "Eight of us were sitting in an office ... brainstorming about what we were going to write on posters for our speak-out. We were referring to it as 'sexual intimidation,' 'sexual coercion,' 'sexual exploitation on the job.' None of those names seemed quite right. We wanted something that embraced a whole range of subtle and un-subtle persistent behaviors. Somebody came up with 'harassment.' 'Sexual harassment!' Instantly we agreed. That's what it was." (p. 281). These activists, Lin Farley, Susan Meyer, and Karen Sauvigne went on to form Working Women's Institute which, along with the Alliance Against Sexual Coercion, founded in 1976 by Freada Klein, Lynn Wehrli, and Elizabeth Cohn-Stuntz, were among the pioneer organizations to bring sexual harassment to public attention in the late 1970s.

Harassment situations

Sexual harassments can occur in a variety of circumstances. Often, but not always, the harasser is in a position of power or authority over the victim (due to differences in age, or social, political, educational or employment relationships). Forms of harassment relationships include:

• The harasser can be anyone, such as a client, a co-worker, a parent or legal guardian, a teacher or professor, a student, a friend, or a stranger.

• The victim does not have to be the person directly harassed but can be anyone who finds the behavior offensive and is affected by it.

• Adverse effects on the target are common

• The victim and harasser can be any gender.

• The harasser does not have to be of the opposite sex.

• The harasser may be completely unaware that his or her behavior is offensive or constitutes sexual harassment or may be completely unaware that his or her actions could be unlawful.^[2]

• Misunderstanding: It can result from a situation where one thinks he/she is making themselves clear, but is not understood the way they intended. The misunderstanding can either be reasonable or unreasonable. An example of unreasonable is when a man holds a certain stereotypical view of a woman such that he did not understand the woman’s explicit message to stop.(Heyman, 1994)

Varied behaviors

One of the difficulties in understanding sexual harassment is that it involves a range of behavior, and is often difficult for the recipient to describe to themselves, and to others, exactly what they are experiencing. Moreover, behavior and motives vary between individual harassers.

Behavioral classes

Dzeich et al. has divided harassers into two broad classes:

• Public harassers are flagrant in their seductive or sexist attitudes towards colleagues, subordinates, students, etc.

• Private harassers carefully cultivate a restrained and respectable image on the surface, but when alone with their target, their demeanor changes.

Langelan describes three different classes of harassers.

• Predatory harasser who gets sexual thrills from humiliating others. This harasser may become involved in sexual extortion, and may frequently harass just to see how targets respond. Those who don't resist may even become targets for rape.

• Dominance harasser: the most common type, who engages in harassing behavior as an ego boost.

• strategic or territorial harassers who seek to maintain privilege in jobs or physical locations, for example a man's harassing female employees in a predominantly male occupation.

Retaliation and backlash

Retaliation and backlash against a victim are very common, particularly a complainant. Victims who speak out against sexual harassment are often labeled troublemakers who are on their own power trips, or who are looking for attention. Similar to cases of rape or sexual assault, the victim often becomes the accused, with their appearance, private life, and character likely to fall under intrusive scrutiny and attack.^[4] They risk hostility and isolation from colleagues, supervisors, teachers, fellow students, and even friends. They may become the targets of mobbing or relational aggression.^[5]

Women are not necessarily sympathetic to female complainants who have been sexually harassed. If the harasser was male, internalized sexism, and/or jealousy over the sexual attention towards the victim, may encourage some women to react with as much hostility towards the complainant as some male colleagues.^[6] Fear of being targeted for harassment or retaliation themselves may also cause some women to respond with hostility.^[7] For example, when Lois Jenson filed her lawsuit against Eveleth Taconite Co., the women placed a hangman's noose above her workplace, and shunned her both at work and in the community—many of these women later joined her suit.(Bingham et al. 2002) Women may even project hostility onto the victim in order to bond with their male coworkers and build trust.^[7]

Retaliation has occurred when a sexual harassment victim suffers a negative action as a result of the harassment. For example, a complainant be given poor evaluations or low grades, have their projects sabotaged, be denied work or academic opportunities, have their work hours cut back, and other actions against them which undermine their productivity, or their ability to advance at work or school. They may be suspended, asked to resign, or be fired from their jobs altogether. Moreover, a professor or employer accused of sexual harassment, or who is the colleague of a perpetrator, can use their power to see that a victim is never hired again, or never accepted to another school. Retaliation can even involve further sexual harassment, and also stalking and cyberstalking of the victim.^[6][7]

Of the women who have approached her to share their own experiences of being sexually harassed by their teachers, feminist and writer Naomi Wolf writes,

"I am ashamed of what I tell them: that they should indeed worry about making an accusation because what they fear is likely to come true. Not one of the women I have heard from had an outcome that was not worse for her than silence. One, I recall, was drummed out of the school by peer pressure. Many faced bureaucratic stonewalling. Some women said they lost their academic status as golden girls overnight; grants dried up, letters of recommendation were no longer forthcoming. No one was met with a coherent process that was not weighted against them. Usually, the key decision-makers in the college or university—especially if it was a private university—joined forces to, in effect, collude with the faculty member accused; to protect not him necessarily but the reputation of the university, and to keep information from surfacing in a way that could protect other women. The goal seemed to be not to provide a balanced forum, but damage control."^[8]

Another woman who was interviewed by Helen Watson, a sociologist, reported that, "Facing up to the crime and having to deal with it in public is probably worse than suffering in silence. I found it to be a lot worse than the harassment itself." (Watson, 1994)

Effects of sexual harassment and the (often) accompanying retaliation

Effects of sexual harassment can vary depending on the individual, and the severity and duration of the harassment. Often, sexual harassment incidents fall into the category of the "merely annoying." However, many situations can, and do, have life-altering effects particularly when they involve severe/chronic abuses, and/or retaliation against a victim who does not submit to the harassment, or who complains about it openly. Indeed, psychologists and social workers report that severe/chronic sexual harassment can have the same psychological effects as rape or sexual assault. (Koss, 1987) For example, in 1995, Judith Coflin committed suicide after chronic sexual harassment by her bosses and coworkers. (Her family was later awarded 6 million dollars in punitive and compensatory damages.) Backlash and victim-blaming can further aggravate the effects. Moreover, every year, sexual harassment costs hundreds of millions of dollars in lost educational and professional opportunities, mostly for girls and women. (Boland, 2002) However, the quantity of men implied in these conflicts is significant.

Common effects on the victims

Common professional, academic, financial, and social effects of sexual harassment:

• Decreased work or school performance; increased absenteeism
• Loss of job or career, loss of income
• Having to drop courses, change academic plans, or leave school (loss of tuition)
• Having one's personal life offered up for public scrutiny—the victim becomes the "accused," and his or her dress, lifestyle, and private life will often come under attack.
• Being objectified and humiliated by scrutiny and gossip
• Becoming publicly sexualized (i.e. groups of people "evaluate" the victim to establish if he or she is "worth" the sexual attention or the risk to the harasser's career)
• Defamation of character and reputation
• Loss of trust in environments similar to where the harassment occurred
• Loss of trust in the types of people that occupy similar positions as the harasser or his or her colleagues
• Extreme stress upon relationships with significant others, sometimes resulting in divorce; extreme stress on peer relationships, or relationships with colleagues
• Weakening of support network, or being ostracized from professional or academic circles (friends, colleagues, or family may distance themselves from the victim, or shun him or her altogether)
• Having to relocate to another city, another job, or another school
• Loss of references/recommendations

Some of the psychological and health effects that can occur in someone who has been sexually harassed: depression, anxiety and/or panic attacks, sleeplessness and/or nightmares, shame and guilt, difficulty concentrating, headaches, fatigue or loss of motivation, stomach problems, eating disorders (weight loss or gain), alcoholism, feeling betrayed and/or violated, feeling angry or violent towards the perpetrator, feeling powerless or out of control, increased blood pressure, loss of confidence and self esteem, withdrawal and isolation, overall loss of trust in people, traumatic stress, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), complex post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal thoughts or attempts, suicide.^{[5][9][10][11][12]}

Effects of sexual harassment on organizations

• Decreased productivity and increased team conflict
• Decrease in success at meeting financial goals (because of team conflict)
• Decreased job satisfaction
• Loss of staff and expertise from resignations to avoid harassment or resignations/firings of alleged harassers; loss of students who leave school to avoid harassment
• Decreased productivity and/or increased absenteeism by staff or students experiencing harassment
• Increased health care costs and sick pay costs because of the health consequences of harassment
• The knowledge that harassment is permitted can undermine ethical standards and discipline in the organization in general, as staff and/or students lose respect for, and trust in, their seniors who indulge in, or turn a blind eye to, sexual harassment
• If the problem is ignored, a company's or school's image can suffer
• Legal costs if the problem is ignored and complainants take the issue to court.(Boland 1990)^{[11][12][13][14][15]}

Prevention

Sexual harassment and assault may be prevented by secondary school,^[16] college,^[17][18] and workplace education programs.^[19] At least one program for fraternity men produced "sustained behavioral change."^[17][20]

The effect of the organization on sexual harassment

Studies show that organizational climate (an organization’s tolerance, policy, procedure etc.) and workplace environment are essential for understanding the conditions in which sexual harassment is likely to occur, and the way its victims will be affected (yet, research on specific policy and procedure and awareness and prevention strategies is lacking). another element which increases the risk for sexual harassment is the job’s gender context (having few women in the close working environment or practicing in a field which is atypical for women).^[21]

According to Dr. Orit Kamir, the most effective way to avoid sexual harassment in the work place, and also influence the public’s state of mind, is for the employer to adopt a clear policy prohibiting sexual harassment and to make it very clear to their employees . Many women prefer to make a complaint and to have the matter resolved within the workplace rather than to “air out the dirty laundry” with a public complaint and be seen as a traitor by colleagues, superiors and employers, adds Kamir.^[22] See also: Rowe, Mary, "People Who Feel Harassed Need a Complaint System with both Formal and Informal Options," in Negotiation Journal, April 1990, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 161–172., and Rowe, Mary, "Dealing with Harassment: A Systems Approach," in Sexual Harassment: Perspectives, Frontiers, and Response Strategies, Women & Work, Vol. 5, Margaret Stockdale, editor, Sage Publications, 1996, pp. 241–271. Most prefer a pragmatic solution that would stop the harassment and prevent future contact with the harasser rather than turning to the police. More about the difficulty in turning an offence into a legal act can be found in Felstiner & Sarat’s (1981) study,^[23] which describes three steps a victim (of any dispute) must go through before turning to the justice system: naming – giving the assault a definition, Blaming – understanding who is responsible for the violation of rights and facing them, and finally, claiming – turning to the authorities. In sexual offences there is great difficulty for the victims to go through these steps, and the closer the relationship between victim and assailant; the harder it is to take each step.

Evolution of sexual harassment law

United States

Main Articles: Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas and the Clarence Thomas Sexual Harassment Allegations

Workplace

In the US, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, sex, color, national origin or religion. Initially only intended to combat sexual harassment of women,{42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2} the prohibition of sex discrimination covers both females and males. This discrimination occurs when the sex of the worker is made as a condition of employment (i.e. all female waitpersons or male carpenters) or where this is a job requirement that does not mention sex but ends up barring many more persons of one sex than the other from the job (such as height and weight limits).

Barnes v. Train (1974) is commonly viewed as the first sexual harassment case in America, even though the term "sexual harassment" was not used.^[24] In 1976, Williams v. Saxbe established sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination when sexual advances by a male supervisor towards a female employee, if proven, would be deemed an artificial barrier to employment placed before one gender and not another. In 1980 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued regulations defining sexual harassment and stating it was a form of sex discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the 1986 case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Supreme Court first recognized "sexual harassment" as a violation of Title VII, established the standards for analyzing whether the conduct was welcome and levels of employer liability, and that speech or conduct in itself can create a "hostile environment". The Civil Rights Act of 1991 added provisions to Title VII protections including expanding the rights of women to sue and collect compensatory and punitive damages for sexual discrimination or harassment, and the case of Ellison v. Brady resulted in rejecting the reasonable person standard in favor of the "reasonable woman standard" which allowed for cases to be analyzed from the perspective of the complainant and not the defendant. Also in 1991, Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. became the first sexual harassment case to be given class action status, paving the way for others. Seven years later, in 1998, this case would establish new precedents for setting limits on the "discovery" process in sexual harassment cases, and allowing psychological injuries from the litigation process to be included in assessing damages awards. In the same year, the courts concluded in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, Florida, and Burlington v. Ellerth, that employers are liable for harassment by their employees. Moreover, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services set the precedent for same-sex harassment, and sexual harassment without motivation of "sexual desire", stating that any discrimination based on sex is actionable so long as it places the victim in an objectively disadvantageous working condition, regardless of the gender of either the victim, or the harasser.

In the 2006 case of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, the standard for retaliation against a sexual harassment complainant was revised to include any adverse employment decision or treatment that would be likely to dissuade a "reasonable worker" from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

During 2007 alone, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and related state agencies received 12,510 new charges of sexual harassment on the job.^[25]

Education

Main article: Sexual harassment in education in the United States

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (United States) states "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

In Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court held that private citizens could collect damage awards when teachers sexually harassed their students. In Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) the courts ruled that schools have the power to discipline students if they use "obscene, profane language or gestures" which could be viewed as substantially interfering with the educational process, and inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education." Under regulations issued in 1997 by the U.S. Department of Education, which administers Title IX, school districts should be held responsible for harassment by educators if the harasser "was aided in carrying out the sexual harassment of students by his or her position of authority with the institution."^[26] In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, and Murrell v. School Dist. No. 1, 1999, schools were assigned liability for peer-to-peer sexual harassment if the plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that the administration's response shows "deliberate indifference" to "actual knowledge" of discrimination.

Evolution of sexual harassment law in other jurisdictions

In India, the case of Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan in 1997 has been credited with establishing sexual harassment as illegal.^[27] In Israel, the 1988 Equal Employment Opportunity Law made it a crime for an employer to retaliate against an employee who had rejected sexual advances, but it wasn't until 1998 that the Israeli Sexual Harassment Law made such behavior illegal. (Kamir, 2005)

In May 2002, the European Union Council and Parliament amended a 1976 Council Directive on the equal treatment of men and women in employment to prohibit sexual harassment in the workplace, naming it a form of sex discrimination and violation of dignity. This Directive required all Member States of the European Union to adopt laws on sexual harassment, or amend existing laws to comply with the Directive by October 2005.^[28]

In 2005, China added new provisions to the Law on Women's Right Protection to include sexual harassment.^[29] In 2006 "The Shanghai Supplement" was drafted to help further define sexual harassment in China.^[30]

Varied legal guidelines and definitions

The United Nations General Recommendation 19 to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women defines sexual harassment of women to include:

"such unwelcome sexually determined behavior as physical contact and advances, sexually colored remarks, showing pornography and sexual demands, whether by words or actions. Such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem; it is discriminatory when the woman has reasonable ground to believe that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment, including recruitment or promotion, or when it creates a hostile working environment."

While such conduct can be harassment of women by men, many laws around the world which prohibit sexual harassment recognize that both men and women may be harassers or victims of sexual harassment. However, most claims of sexual harassment are made by women.^[31]

There are many similarities, and also important differences in laws and definitions used around the world. After covering one country in some detail (the United States), approaches in other countries are covered alphabetically.

Australia

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 defines sexual harassment as "... unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the person harassed would be offended, humiliated or intimidated."

Czech Republic

Undesirable behavior of a sexual nature at the workplace if such conduct is unwelcome, unsuitable or insulting, or if it can be justifiably perceived by the party concerned as a condition for decisions affecting the exercise of rights and obligations ensuring from labor relations.^[32]

Denmark

Sexual harassment is defined as, when any verbal, non-verbal or physical action is used to change a victim's sexual status against the will of the victim and resulting in the victim feeling inferior or hurting the victim's dignity. Man and woman are looked upon as equal, and any action trying to change the balance in status with the differences in sex as a tool, is also sexual harassment. In the workplace, jokes, remarks, etc., are only deemed discriminatory if the employer has stated so in their written policy. Women are viewed as being responsible for confronting harassment themselves, such as by slapping the harasser in the face. Law number 1385 of December 21, 2005 regulates this area.^[33]

France

Article 222-33 of the French Criminal Code describes sexual harassment as, "The fact of harassing anyone using orders, threats or constraint, in order to obtain favors of a sexual nature, by a person abusing the authority that functions confer on him..." This means the harasser can only be someone with authority on the harassed (basically, there can't be sexual harassment between coworkers of the same rank). However, moral harassment occurs when an employee is subjected to repeated acts (one is not enough) the aim or effect of which may result in a degradation (deterioration) of his conditions of employment that might undermine his rights and his dignity, affect his physical or mental health or jeopardize his professional future. Sexual as well as the moral harassment is recognized by the law.^[34]

India

Further information: Sexism in India

Sexual harassment in India is termed "Eve teasing" and is described as: unwelcome sexual gesture or behaviour whether directly or indirectly as sexually coloured remarks; physical contact and advances; showing pornography; a demand or request for sexual favours; any other unwelcome physical, verbal/non-verbal conduct being sexual in nature. The critical factor is the unwelcomeness of the behaviour, thereby making the impact of such actions on the recipient more relevant rather than intent of the perpetrator.^[27] According to India's constitution, sexual harassment infringes the fundamental right of a woman to gender equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and her right to life and live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.^[35] Although there is no specific law against sexual harassment at workplace in India but many provisions in other legislations protect against sexual harassment at workplace, such as Section 354, IPC deals with “assault or criminal force to a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty, and Section 509, IPC deals with “word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.^[35]

Israel

The 1998 Israeli Sexual Harassment Law interprets sexual harassment broadly, and prohibits the behavior as a discriminatory practice, a restriction of liberty, an offence to human dignity, a violation of every person's right to elementary respect, and an infringement of the right to privacy. Additionally, the law prohibits intimidation or retaliation that accommodates sexual harassment. Intimidation or retaliation thus related to sexual harassment are defined by the law as "prejudicial treatment". (Kamir, 2005)

Pakistan

Pakistan has adopted a Code of Conduct for Gender Justice in the Workplace that will deal with cases of sexual harassment. The Alliance Against Sexual Harassment At workplace (AASHA) announced they would be working with the committee to establish guidelines for the proceedings. AASHA defines sexual harassment much the same as it is defined in the U.S. and other cultures.^[36]

Philippines

The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 was enacted "primarily to protect and respect the dignity of workers, employees, and applicants for employment as well as students in educational institutions or training centers. This law, consisting of ten sections, provides for a clear definition of work, education or training-related sexual harassment and specifies the acts constituting sexual harassment. It likewise provides for the duties and liabilities of the employer in cases of sexual harassment, and sets penalties for violations of its provisions. It is to be noted that a victim of sexual harassment is not barred from filing a separate and independent action for damages and other relief aside from filing the charge for sexual harassment."^[37]

Poland

There is no special provision in the employment law that provides for moral or sexual harassment; however it is commonly accepted by the jurisprudence, that sexual harassment occurs when the employee is subjected to acts of another person in order to obtain favours of a sexual nature. Moral harassment occurs when en employee is subjected to acts which may result in a deterioration of his conditions of employment or undermine his rights and dignity as well as affect his physical or moral health. These definitions are not legal ones, but definitions accepted by the jurisprudence.^[32]

Russia

In the Criminal Code, Russian Federation, (CC RF), there exists a law which prohibits utilization of an office position and material dependence for coercion of sexual interactions (Article 118, current CC RF). However, according to the Moscow Center for Gender Studies, in practice, the courts do not examine these issues.^[38]

The Daily Telegraph quotes a survey in which "100 per cent of female professionals [in Russia] said they had been subjected to sexual harassment by their bosses, 32 per cent said they had had intercourse with them at least once and another seven per cent claimed to have been raped."^[39]

Switzerland

A ban on discrimination was included in the Federal Constitution (Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the old Federal Constitution) in 1981 and adopted in Article 8, paragraph 2 of the revised Constitution. The ban on sexual harassment in the workplace forms part of the Federal Act on Gender Equality (GEA) of 24 March 1995, where it is one of several provisions which prohibit discrimination in employment and which are intended to promote equality. Article 4 of the GEA defines the circumstances, Article 5 legal rights and Article 10 protection against dismissal during the complaints procedure. Article 328, paragraph 1 of the Code of Obligations (OR), Article 198 (2) of the Penal Code (StGB) and Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Employment Act (ArG) contain further statutory provisions on the ban on sexual harassment. The ban on sexual harassment is intended exclusively for employers, within the scope of their responsibility for protection of legal personality, mental and physical well-being and health.

Article 4 of the GEA of 1995 defines sexual harassment in the workplace as follows: “Any behaviour of a sexual nature or other behaviour attributable to gender which affronts the human dignity of males and females in the workplace. This expressly includes threats, the promise of advantages, the application of coercion and the exercise of pressure to achieve an accommodation of a sexual nature.”

United Kingdom

The Discrimination Act of 1975, was modified to establish sexual harassment as a form of discrimination in 1986.^[40] It states that harassment occurs where there is unwanted conduct on the ground of a person's sex or unwanted conduct of a sexual nature and that conduct has the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them. If an employer treats someone less favourably because they have rejected, or submitted to, either form of harassment described above, this is also harassment.^[41]

United States

There are a number of legal options for a complainant in the U.S.: mediation, filing with the EEOC or filing a claim under a state Fair Employment Practices (FEP) statute (both are for workplace sexual harassment), filing a common law tort, etc.^[42] Not all sexual harassment will be considered severe enough to form the basis for a legal claim. However, most often there are several types of harassing behaviors present, and there is no minimum level for harassing conduct under the law.(Boland, 2002) Many more experienced sexual harassment than have a solid legal case against the accused. Because of this, and the common preference for settling, few cases ever make it to federal court.^[42] The section below "EEOC Definition" describes the legal definitions that have been created for sexual harassment in the workplace. Definitions similar to the EEOC defnition have been created for academic environments in the U.S. Department of Education Sexual Harassment Guidance.

EEOC Definition

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that it is unlawful to harass an applicant or employee of any sex in the work place. The harassment could include sexual harassment. The EEOC says that the victim and harasser could be any gender and that the other does not have to be of the opposite sex. The law does not ban offhand comments, simple teasing, or incidents that aren't very serious. If the harassment gets to the point where it creates a harsh work environment, it will be taken care of.^[2] In 1980, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission produced a set of guidelines for defining and enforcing Title VII (in 1984 it was expanded to include educational institutions). The EEOC defines sexual harassment as:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

1. Submission to such conduct was made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,

2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual was used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or

3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

1. and 2. are called "quid pro quo" (Latin for "this for that" or "something for something"). They are essentially "sexual bribery", or promising of benefits, and "sexual coercion".

Type 3. known as "hostile work environment," is by far the most common form. This form is less clear cut and is more subjective.^[6]

Note: a workplace harassment complainant must file with the EEOC and receive a "right to sue" clearance, before they can file a lawsuit against a company in federal court. (Boland, 2002)

Sex discrimination discrimination can take two forms, either 1) “Hostile Work Environment Harassment” or 2) “Quid Pro Quo Harassment.” ^[43]

Quid pro quo sexual harassment

Quid pro quo means "this for that". In the workplace, this occurs when a job benefit is directly tied to an employee submitting to unwelcome sexual advances. For example, a supervisor promises an employee a raise if he or she will go out on a date with him or her, or tells an employee he or she will be fired if he or she doesn't sleep with him or her.^[44] Quid pro quo harassment also occurs when an employee makes an evaluative decision, or provides or withholds professional opportunities based on another employee's submission to verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.  Quid pro quo harassment is equally unlawful whether the victim resists and suffers the threatened harm or submits and thus avoids the threatened harm.^[45]

Hostile environment sexual harassment

Main article: Hostile environment sexual harassment

This occurs when an employee is subjected to comments of a sexual nature, unwelcome physical contact, or offensive sexual materials as a regular part of the work environment. For the most part, a single isolated incident will not be enough to prove hostile environment harassment unless it involves extremely outrageous and egregious conduct. The courts will try to decide whether the conduct is both "serious" and "frequent." Supervisors, managers, co-workers and even customers can be responsible for creating a hostile environment.^[46] Probably the most famous hostile environment sexual harassment case to date is Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. which inspired the movie North Country (film).

The line between "quid pro quo" and "hostile environment" harassment is not always clear and the two forms of harassment often occur together. For example, an employee's job conditions are affected when a sexually hostile work environment results in a constructive discharge. At the same time, a supervisor who makes sexual advances toward a subordinate employee may communicate an implicit threat to retaliate against her if she does not comply.^[47]

"Hostile environment" harassment may acquire characteristics of "quid pro quo" harassment if the offending supervisor abuses his authority over employment decisions to force the victim to endure or participate in the sexual conduct. Sexual harassment may culminate in a retaliatory discharge if a victim tells the harasser or her employer she will no longer submit to the harassment, and is then fired in retaliation for this protest. Under these circumstances it would be appropriate to conclude that both harassment and retaliation in violation of section 704(a) of Title VII have occurred."

Gender discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination. It is often non-sexual but is nonetheless directed at a person because of that person's sex. Examples of discriminatory comments and behaviors include employers:

• Asking whether an employment candidate is married or plans on having children;
• Making reference to an employee “PMS”ing;
• Claiming that a woman should be more feminine and wear makeup;
• Calling an effeminate male a “fairy,” or “prissy” or stating that he should ‘act more like a man;’
• Refusing to hire a man in a “woman’s job” and vice versa;
• Retaliating against an employee for assisting in or cooperating with an investigation or lawsuit based upon gender discrimination.^[43]

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

There are no federal laws against discrimination against employees of a certain sexual orientation. However, Executive Order 13087, signed by President Bill Clinton, outlaws discrimination against workers of a different sexual orientation in federal government. If a small business owner owns his or her business in a state where there is a law against sexual orientation discrimination, the owner must abide to the law regardless of there not being a federal law. Twenty states and the District of Columbia have a law against this form of discrimination in the workplace. These states include California, Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.^[48] For example, California has laws in place to protect employees who may have been discriminated against based upon sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. California law prohibits discrimination against those “with traits not stereotypically associated with their gender,” such as mannerisms, appearance, speech, etc. Sexual orientation discrimination comes up, for instance, when employers enforce a dress code, permit women to wear makeup but not men, or require men and women to only use restrooms designated for their particular sex regardless of whether they are transgendered.^[43]

Retaliation

Retaliation has occurred when an employee suffers a negative action after he or she has made a report of sexual harassment, file a grievance, assist someone else with a complaint, or participate in discrimination prevention activities. Negative actions can include being fired, demotion, suspension, denial of promotion, poor evaluation, unfavorable job re-assignment—any adverse employment decision or treatment that would be likely to dissuade a "reasonable worker" from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.(See Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White) Retaliation is as illegal as the sexual harassment itself, but also as difficult to prove. Also, retaliation is illegal even if the original charge of sexual harassment was not proven.

Debates

Though the phrase "sexual harassment" is generally acknowledged to include clearly damaging and morally deplorable behavior, its boundaries can be broad and controversial. Accordingly, misunderstandings can abound. Moreover, sexual harassment law has been highly criticized by experts, such as Alan Dershowitz and Eugene Volokh, for imposing on the right to free speech.^[49] Some feminist groups criticize sexual harassment policy as helping maintain archaic stereotypes of women as "delicate, asexual creatures" who require special protection.^[50] Camille Paglia, for example says that young girls can end up acting in such ways as to make sexual harassment easier, such that for example, by acting "nice" they can become a target. Paglia commented in an interview with Playboy, "Realize the degree to which your niceness may invoke people to say lewd and pornographic things to you--sometimes to violate your niceness. The more you blush, the more people want to do it."^[51]

Sexual harassment policy and legislation have been criticized as attempts to "regulate romance" which goes against human urges.^[52] Other critics assert that sexual harassment is a very serious problem, but current views focus too heavily on sexuality rather than on the type of conduct that undermines the ability of women or men to work together effectively. Viki Shultz, a law professor at Yale University comments, "Many of the most prevalent forms of harassment are designed to maintain work-particularly the more highly rewarded lines of work-as bastions of male competence and authority."^[53] Feminist Jane Gallop sees this evolution of the definition of sexual harassment as coming from a "split" between what she calls "power feminists" who are pro-sex (like herself) and what she calls "victim feminists," who are not. She argues that the split has helped lead to a perversion of the definition of sexual harassment, which used to be about sexism but has come to be about anything that's sexual. (Gallop, 1997)

There is also concern over abuses of sexual harassment policy by individuals as well as by employers and administrators using false and/or frivolous accusations as a way of expelling employees they want to eliminate for other reasons. Plus these employees often have virtually no recourse thanks to the at-will law in most US states. (Westhues, 1998).

O'Donohue and Bowers outlined 14 possible pathways to false allegations of sexual harassment: "lying, borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, psychosis, gender prejudice, substance abuse, dementia, false memories, false interpretations, biased interviews, sociopathy, personality disorders not otherwise specified."^[54]

There is also discussion of whether some recent trends towards more revealing clothing and permissive habits have created a more sexualized general environment, in which some forms of communication are unfairly labeled harassment, but are simply a reaction to greater sexualization in everyday environments.^[55]

There are many debates about how organizations should deal with sexual harassment. Some observers feel strongly that organizations should be held to a zero tolerance standard of "Must report - must investigate - must punish."

Others write that those who feel harassed should in most circumstances have a choice of options. See "Workplace Justice, Zero Tolerance, and Zero Barriers," 2001, by Mary Rowe and Corinne Bendersky, in Negotiations and Change, From the Workplace to Society, Thomas Kochan and Richard Locke (editors), Cornell University Press, 2002; Mary Rowe in "Dealing with Harassment: A Systems Approach," in Sexual Harassment: Perspectives, Frontiers, and Response Strategies, Women & Work, Vol. 5, Margaret Stockdale, editor, Sage Publications, 1996, pp. 241–271; Mary Rowe, "People Who Feel Harassed Need a Complaint System with both Formal and Informal Options," in Negotiation Journal, April, 1990, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 161–172; Mary Rowe, "Dealing with Harassment: A Systems Approach," in Sexual Harassment: Perspectives, Frontiers, and Response Strategies, Women & Work, Vol. 5, Margaret Stockdale, editor, Sage Publications, 1996, pp. 241–271. Sexual harassment, by definition, is unwanted and not to be tolerated but there often are a number of effective ways for offended and injured people to deal with harassment.

See also

• Catharine MacKinnon
• Employment discrimination
• Hostile environment sexual harassment
• Love contract
• Microinequity
• Sexism
• Sexual abuse
• Sexual harassment in education
• Stalker (Stalking)
• Workplace bullying
• Disciplinary counseling
• London Anti-Street Harassment campaign

References

• American Association of University Women. Hostile Hallways: Bullying, Teasing, and Sexual Harassment in School. AAUW, 2002.
• American Association of University Women. Drawing the Line: Sexual Harassment on Campus. AAUW,2006.
• Bingham, Clara, Gansler, Laura Leedy. Class Action: The Landmark Case that Changed Sexual Harassment Law. New York, Anchor Books, 2002.
• Boland, Mary L. Sexual Harassment: Your Guide to Legal Action. Naperville, Illinois: Sphinx Publishing, 2002.
• Dziech, Billie Wright, Weiner, Linda. The Lecherous Professor: Sexual Harassment on Campus. Chicago Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1990.
• Gallop, Jane. Feminist Accused of Sexual Harassment. Duke University Press, 1997.
• Harper, Colin. My Uncontrollable Urges. Bridge Publications, 1998.
• Harper, Colin. Why I can't take 'no' for an answer... Bridge Publications, 2001
• Heyman, R. (1994). Why Didn't You Say That in the First Place? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Kamir, Orit. "Israel's 1998 Sexual Harassment Law: Prohibiting Sexual Harassment, Sexual Stalking, and Degradation Based on Sexual Orientation in the Workplace and in all Social Settings." International Journal of Discrimination and Law, 2005, 7, 315-336.
• Koss, Mary P. "Changed Lives: The Psychological Impact of Sexual Harassment." in Paludi, Michele A. ed. Ivory Power: Sexual Harassment On Campus. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1987.
• Langelan, Martha. Back Off: How to Confront and Stop Sexual Harassment and Harassers. Fireside, 1993
• Patai, Daphne. Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999.
• Rowe,Mary "People Who Feel Harassed Need a Complaint System with both Formal and Informal Options," in Negotiation Journal, April, 1990, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 161–172.
• Rowe,Mary, "Dealing with Harassment: A Systems Approach," in Sexual Harassment: Perspectives, Frontiers, and Response Strategies, Women & Work, Vol. 5, Margaret Stockdale, editor, Sage Publications, 1996, pp. 241–271.
• Rowe, Mary & Corinne Bendersky, "Workplace Justice, Zero Tolerance, and Zero Barriers," 2001, in Negotiations and Change, From the Workplace to Society, Thomas Kochan and Richard Locke (editors), Cornell University Press, 2002.
• Rowe, Mary, "Saturn's Rings," a study of the minutiae of sexism which maintain discrimination and inhibit affirmative action results in corporations and non-profit institutions; published in Graduate and Professional Education of Women, American Association of University Women, 1974, pp. 1–9. "Saturn's Rings II" is a 1975 updating of the original, with racist and sexist incidents from 1974 and 1975. An excerpt appears in the Harvard Medical Alumni Bulletin, Volume 50, No. 1 (Sept./Oct. 1975), pp. 14–18. A more complete version appears in Bourne, Patricia and Velma Parness, eds., Proceedings of the NSF Conference on Women's Leadership and Authority, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, 1977, also reprinted in Comment, Vol. 10, No 3 (March 1978), p. 3. Also revised and republished as "The Minutiae of Discrimination: The Need for Support," in Forisha, Barbara and Barbara Goldman, Outsiders on the Inside, Women in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1981, Ch. 11, pp. 155–171.
• Watson, Helen. "Red herrings and mystifications: Conflicting perceptions of sexual harassment," in Brant, Clare, and Too, Yun Lee, eds., Rethinking Sexual Harassment. Boulder, Colorado, Pluto Press, 1994.
• Westhues, Kenneth. Eliminating Professors: A Guide to the Dismissal Process. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1998.
• Roberts S., Barry Mann A., Richard- "Sexual Harassment In The Workplace: A PRIMER"

For further reading

• Directions in Sexual Harassment Law. R. B. Siegel, co-editor. MacKinnon, Catherine. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 2004.
• Ivory Power: Sexual Harassment On Campus. Paludi, Michele A. ed. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1987.
• Sexual Harassment : A Practical Guide to the Law, Your Rights, and Your Options for Taking Action. O'Shea, Tracy, and LaLonde, Jane. St. Martin's Griffin, 1998.
• Sexual Harassment of Working Women : A Case of Sex Discrimination. MacKinnon, Catherine. Yale University Press, 1979
• Sexual Harassment on the Job: What It Is and How to Stop it. Petrocelli, William, and Repa, Barbara Kate. NOLO, 1998
• The Updated and Expanded 9to5 Guide to Combating Sexual Harassment : Candid Advice from 9to5, the National Association of Working Women. Bravo, Ellen, and Cassedy, Ellen. The 9to5 Fund, 1999.
• Swift, James T. 2010 "Exploring Capital Metro’s Sexual Harassment Training Using Dr. Bengt-Ake Lundvall’s Taxonomy of Knowledge Principles". Applied Research Projects. Texas State University. Paper 326. http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/326

Sexual harassment in media and literature

• The Ballad of Little Jo: film based on the true story of a woman living in the frontier west who disguises herself as a man to protect herself from the sexual harassment and abuse of women all too common in that environment.
• Disclosure: a film starring Michael Douglas and Demi Moore in which a man is sexually harassed by his female superior, who tries to use the situation to destroy his career by claiming that he was the sexual harasser.
• Disgrace: a novel about a South African literature professor whose career is ruined after he has an affair with a student.
• Hostile Advances: The Kerry Ellison Story: television movie about Ellison v. Brady, the case that set the "reasonable woman" precedent in sexual harassment law.
• In the Company of Men: film about two male coworkers who, angry at women, plot to seduce and maliciously toy with the emotions of a deaf subordinate who works at the same company.
• Les Miserables: a novel by Victor Hugo, and later several film adaptations. During the early stages of the story, Fantine is fired from her job after refusing to have sex with her boss.
• The Magdalene Sisters: film based on the true stories of young women imprisoned for "bringing shame upon their families" by being raped, sexually abused, flirting, or simply being pretty, and subsequently subjected to sexual harassment and abuse by the nuns and priests in the Magdalene asylums in Ireland.
• Nine to Five: film comedy starring Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, and Dolly Parton, about three women who are subjected to constant bullying and sexual harassment by their boss.
• North Country: film depicting a fictionalized account of Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co., the first sexual harassment class action lawsuit in the U.S.
• Oleanna: an American play by David Mamet, later a film starring William H. Macy. A college professor is accused of sexual harassment by a student. The film deals with the moral controversy as it never becomes clear which character is correct.
• Pretty Persuasion: film starring Evan Rachel Wood and James Woods in which students turn the tables on a lecherous and bigoted teacher. A scathingly satirical film of sexual harassment and discrimination in schools, and attitudes towards females in media and society.
• War Zone: documentary about street harassment.
• Sexual Harassment Panda, an episode of South Park, parodies sexual harassment in schools and the lawsuits which result from lawyers and children using the vague definition of sexual harassment in order to win their lawsuits.
• Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, an instrumental minor-key blues by Frank Zappa, from the album Guitar
• Sexual Harassment In the Workplace: A Primer by Barry S. Roberts and Richard A. Mann

Notes

1. ^ Paludi, Michele Antoinette; Barickman, (1991). Academic and Workplace Sexual Harassment. SUNY Press. pp. 2–5. ISBN 0791408299. 
2. ^ ^{a b c} "Sexual Harassment". U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm. 
3. ^ Dziech et al. 1990, Boland 2002
4. ^ Sexual harassment too often leads to humiliation for victims
5. ^ ^{a b} Effects of Sexual Harassment
6. ^ ^{a b c} Dealing With Sexual Harassment
7. ^ ^{a b c} Sexual harassment retaliation, backlash, and victim blaming
8. ^ The Silent Treatment
9. ^ Common Effects of Sexual Harassment
10. ^ Sexual Harassment: Myths and Realities
11. ^ ^{a b} StopVAW: Effects of Sexual Harassment
12. ^ ^{a b} Psychosocial and Organizational Factors: Sexual Harassment
13. ^ Sexual harassment bad for victims and for business June 22, 2005
14. ^ Sexual harassment: Poisoning profit prospects August 10, 2005
15. ^ For Help with the Handling of Harassment
16. ^ Smothers, M.K. (2011) "A Sexual Assault Primary Prevention Model with Diverse Urban Youth" Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 20(6):708-27. PMID 22126112
17. ^ ^{a b} Foubert, J.D. (2000) "The Longitudinal Effects of a Rape-prevention Program on Fraternity Men's Attitudes, Behavioral Intent, and Behavior" Journal of American College Health 48(4):158-63 PMID 10650733
18. ^ Vladutiu, C.J. et al. (2011) "College- or university-based sexual assault prevention programs: a review of program outcomes, characteristics, and recommendations" Trauma, Violence, and Abuse 12(2):67-86 PMID 21196436
19. ^ Yeater, E.A. and O'Donohue, W. (1999) "Sexual assault prevention programs: Current issues, future directions, and the potential efficacy of interventions with women" Clinical Psychology Review 19'(7):739-71 PMID 10520434
20. ^ Garrity, S.E. (2011) "Sexual assault prevention programs for college-aged men: A critical evaluation" Journal of Forensic Nursing 7(1):40-8 PMID 21348933
21. ^ CHELSEA R. WILLNESS & PIERS STEEL & KIBEOM LEE, A META-ANALYSIS OF THE ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT , PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 2007
22. ^ קמיר אורית, "החוק הישראלי למניעת הטרדה מינית- איפה אנחנו במלואת לו עשור?
23. ^ W. L. Felstiner, R. L. Abel & A. Sarat, “The Emergence and Transformation of Dispute: Naming, blaming, Claiming…”, 15 Law & Society Rev. (1980-1981)
24. ^ The Sad Evolution of Sexual Harassment October 27, 2004
25. ^ Marshall, David; Justine Andronici (23 October 2008). "Sexual Harassment Law: A Brief Introduction for New Practitioners". Katz, Marshall & Banks. http://www.kmblegal.com/index.php/160/Sexual_Harassment_Law_A_Brief_Introduction_for_New_Practitioners. Retrieved 18 March 2011. 
26. ^ Sexual Harassment Guidance
27. ^ ^{a b} Sexual Harassment and Rape Laws in India
28. ^ Domestic Legal Framework November 1, 2003
29. ^ China to outlaw sexual harassment
30. ^ China Daily
31. ^ U.S. EEOC statistics
32. ^ ^{a b} Employment Law in Each Country
33. ^ Denmark Law
34. ^ Sexual Harassment in the Workplace in France and in the United States Spring 1997
35. ^ ^{a b} ICFAI University -- Workplace Harassmaent
36. ^ AASHA - (Pakistan) Alliance Against Sexual Harassment
37. ^ Full text of the Philippine Anti Sexual Harassment Law
38. ^ Sexual Harassment in Russian Workplaces - Sexual Harassment Support Forum
39. ^ Blomfield, Adrian (29 Jul 2008). "Sexual harassment okay as it ensures humans breed, Russian judge rules". The Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2470310/Sexual-harrassment-okay-as-it-ensures-humans-breed-Russian-judge-rules.html. Retrieved 15 July 2011. 
40. ^ Strathclyde Regional Council v Porcelli [1986] IRLR 134 Court of Session
41. ^ Sexual Harassment: what the law says
42. ^ ^{a b} What to Do if You or Someone You Know is Sexually Harassed
43. ^ ^{a b c} Sexual Harassment and Gender Discrimination - Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson
44. ^ The Law & Your Job: What is quid pro quo harassment?
45. ^ Sexual Harassment In The Workplace
46. ^ The Law & Your Job: What is hostile environment harassment?
47. ^ Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment 03/19/90
48. ^ "Preventing Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace". http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/preventing-sexual-orientation-discrimination-workplace-30213.html. Retrieved 28 September 2011. 
49. ^ Freedom of Speech vs. Workplace Harassment Law
50. ^ Feminism and Free Speech
51. ^ Playboy interview, Camille Paglia May 1995
52. ^ Sexual Harassment: The employer's role in prevention
53. ^ Love, Lust, and the Law Sexual Harassment in the Academy
54. ^ William O'Donohue, Adrian H. Bowers. Pathways to false allegations of sexual harassment. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. Jan 2006. 3(1):44-47. DOI: 10.1002/jip.43
55. ^ 'Save the males': Ho culture lights fuses, but confuses, By KATHLEEN PARKER, NY Daily News, June 30th 2008. Based on "Save the Males" by Kathleen Parker, Copyright 2008, Random House, an imprint of Random House Publishing Group.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Sexual harassment

• U.S. Dept. Of Education Sexual Harassment Resources
• Committee for Children: Bullying and sexual harassment in schools
• Terrorism at Workplace – SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT WORKPLACE BILL

v d e Sex Physiological events Erection Insemination Orgasm Female and Male ejaculation Pregnancy Sexual arousal Health and education Birth control Condom Postorgasmic illness syndrome Reproductive medicine Andrology Gynaecology Urology Safe sex Sex education Sex therapy Certified sex addiction therapist Certified sex therapist Sex surrogate Sexual dysfunction Erectile dysfunction Hypersexuality Hyposexuality Sexually transmitted disease Sexual medicine Identity Gender identity Sexual identity Sexual orientation Law Age of consent Criminal transmission of HIV Incest Obscenity Public indecency Sexual assault Sexual harassment Sexual misconduct Sexual violence History Feminist Sex Wars History of erotic depictions Sexual revolution Relationships and society Anarchism and love/sex Family planning Marriage Paraphilia Polyamory Promiscuity Religion and sexuality Romance Sexual abstinence Sexual addiction Sexual attraction Sexual capital Sexual ethics Sexual objectification By country India China Ancient Rome the Philippines Japan South Korea United States (teen) Sexual activities Anal sex Ass to mouth Bareback BDSM Bukkake Child sex Child sexual abuse Child-on-child sexual abuse Circle jerk Cock-and-ball torture Creampie Cum shot Cybersex Dirty talk Facial Felching Fingering Fisting Group sex Gang bang Incest Accidental incest Covert incest Masturbation Mechanics of sex Non-penetrative sex Mammary intercourse Footjob Frot Heavy petting Handjob Sumata Oral sex Anilingus Cunnilingus Fellatio Irrumatio Tea bag Stimulation of nipples Orgasm control Pompoir Quickie Rape Corrective rape Date rape Gang rape Marital rape Serial rape Statutory rape Prison rape Rape by deception War rape Sex positions Sexual abuse Catholic sex abuse Sexual violence Sexual intercourse Foreplay Sex magic Sexual penetration Sexual sublimation Snowballing Venus Butterfly Sex industry Adult video game Child, female, and male sex tourism Erotica Pornography Prostitution Sex museum Sex shop Sex toy doll Strip club Religion and sexuality Islam Christian demonology Mormonism Daoism Sexuality portal Animal sexual behaviour Human sexuality Sexology Sexual slang

v d e Sexual ethics Human sexuality Adultery · Incest (law) · Miscegenation · Pregnancy (Abortion) · Prostitution (law) · Education · Fetishism · Objectification · Orientation Child sexuality Child pornography (law) · Prostitution of children · Child sex tourism · Child marriage Sexual abuse Harassment · Rape (law) · Child sexual abuse (law) · Child-on-child sexual abuse Age of consent Africa · Asia · Oceania · Europe · North America · South America List of topics in sexual ethics

v d e Abuse Types Anti-social behaviour · Bullying · Child abuse (neglect, sexual) · Domestic abuse · Elder abuse · Harassment · Humiliation · Incivility · Institutional abuse · Intimidation · Neglect · Personal abuse · Professional abuse · Psychological abuse · Physical abuse · Sexual abuse · Stalking · Structural abuse · Verbal abuse · more... Related topics Complex post-traumatic stress disorder · Dehumanization · Denial · Destabilisation · Exaggeration · Grooming (adult, child) · Lying · Manipulation · Minimisation · Personality disorders · Psychological projection · Psychological trauma · Psychopathy · Rationalization (making excuses) · Victim blaming · Victim playing · Victimisation

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)