Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Sexual harassment is unwanted conduct of a sexual nature that is prohibited both by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972. While Title VII applies to sexual harassment complaints involving employees, Title IX protects students from inappropriate behavior. The original purpose of sexual harassment legislation was to prohibit employers from hiring and promoting employees on the basis of their gender and from making sexual favors a condition of employment. Early sexual harassment litigation focused on male and female interaction in work and educational settings.

Unfortunately, there are numerous incidents of harassing behavior of students, faculty members, and staff at colleges and universities based on their sexual orientations. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered students are more likely to be harassed than their heterosexual counterparts. This harassment comes primarily from their peers; however, incidents of reported sexual harassment by same-sex students are rare. The relatively small number of reported incidents may be a result of the fact that threats of violence often do not materialize after peers threaten or harass student victims.

As reflected by the litigation discussed below, same-sex sexual harassment is less common among college or university employees than among employees in other areas. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling specifically on same-sex harassment, together with various decisions from lower courts, has established that Title VII's prohibition of sexual harassment includes cases where the perpetrator and victim are of the same sex. This entry reviews these cases and also examines issues relating to enforcement and institutional liability for sexual harassment.

Litigation

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998) is the only Supreme Court case on same-sex sexual harassment. Oncale involved a male roustabout on an eight-man platform crew in Louisiana who alleged that he was forcibly subjected to humiliating sex-related actions by some of his male coworkers in the presence of the rest of the crew and that he was physically assaulted and threatened with rape by another worker. The Court ruled that the claim of same-sex sexual harassment was properly filed pursuant to Title VII, thus establishing that the prohibition of sexual harassment applies to same-sex incidents. In its analysis, the Court added that because the motivation for the harassing behavior need not be sexual desire, cases could proceed to trial as long as harassers had engaged in behavior that was so severe or pervasive that it created an abusive working environment.

To date, the vast majority of litigation addressing same-sex sexual harassment has occurred in settings outside of higher education. Even so, there has been litigation involving colleges and universities that is worth noting. In Snider v. Jefferson State Community College (2003), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims filed by male security officers who sued the president and a dean at their community college for same-sex sexual harassment by their supervisor. The court maintained that the defendants were entitled to rely on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity to shield them from the plaintiffs' Title VII claim, because it was not clear at the time that the alleged incidents occurred that the harassment violated the rights of the security officers.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading