Sexual Harassment in Workplaces

In 1981, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission added sexual harassment to its list of work-related discriminations prohibited by Title VII. Since then, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, South Africa, Australia, and Japan have adopted similar prohibitions. The conceptualization of the harm caused and the severity of punishment varies across nations. In the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, for example, sexual harassment is a civil liberty violation and defined as unwanted sexual attention that becomes a condition of employment. In 2002, a European Parliament resolution cast sexual harassment as a human rights issue and as sexist behavior that undermines a worker's right to dignity.

Before 1981, a sexual harassment victim's only legal recourse was to file either tort or criminal [Page 666]charges. As a result, only the most egregious cases- for example, rape or assault-were ever heard in court. Implementation of government agency complaint processes added civil litigation and government mediation to the recourse options. More than 30 years of case law codifies the behaviors for which employers are legally liable. In most cases, liable parties must pay compensatory damages. In the United States, juries have added up to 30 million dollars in punitive damages.

Legally speaking, there are four types of sexual harassment: (1) quid pro quo, (2) paramour favoritism, (3) hostile environment harassment, and (4) retaliation. The first, quid pro quo, refers to the exchange of sexual favors for hire, promotion, or protection from dismissal or demotion. The most common form is uninvited requests for dates or sexual liaison. Paramour favoritism occurs when a supervisor and subordinate engage in a sexual relationship in such a way that dis-parately impacts other coworkers. Coworkers do more work to accommodate the relationship or are denied benefits because of it. Hostile environments are created by sexualized behaviors that make an employee feel unwelcome because of his or her gender or sexuality. Hostile environments are not the result of one person's misbehavior, but rather are the products of a group effort to demean the victims and those like them. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court broadened what constitutes retaliation for resisting sexual harassment. Before their ruling, only evidence of dismissal or demotion counted. Now, any undesirable change in shift, workstation, or duty constitutes retaliation.

Criminologists note at least four similarities between the dynamics of sexual harassment and the violence of crimes against women (e.g., battering, rape, incest, stalking, and sexual slavery). Most notably, sexual harassment is a crime overwhelmingly committed by men against women. National surveys estimate that in any given year 34% to 60% of working women experience sexual harassment. In contrast, 7% to 19% of sexual harassment victims are men, and nearly 90% of sexual harassers (of either women or men) are also men. Second, fear of retaliation and the prospect of being blamed or turned away ensure witnesses' silence and discourage efforts to seek help. Third, gender ideology normalizes the forced imposition of sexual attention upon women as natural and therefore, unavoidable. As a result, sexual harassment is often excused as an unfortunate byproduct of men's greater need for sex or biological drive to reproduce. Finally, sexual harassment limits opportunities of all women, even those without direct experience of it. The desire to avoid sexual harassment and the need to escape it affect decisions to leave a job or accept a job as well as to request a promotion or to transfer.

...