Sexual Harassment in the Workplace - a Rising Legal Tide - Research Paper Example

?Full and number Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A Rising Legal Tide The incidence of sexual harassment inthe workplace, while prevalent from the early days of women in sweatshops to modern offices, posed a problem for women who, without legal recourse, were often confronted on a daily basis with such discrimination. Until 1964 and the inclusion of such behavior in the Civil rights Act under Title VII, courts generally avoided the issue as an inappropriate responsibility to “delve into interpretations of human behavior” (Achampong, Preface IX). With the changes instituted by the 1964 Act, courts not only became responsible for interpreting what actions constituted sexual harassment, but found themselves virtually inundated with cases which previously would likely have been swept under the rug. Today, sexual harassment cases filed under the law, thanks to several well-publicized court actions, have become a “hot ticket” legal item, with thousands of alleged cases heard each year and as many victims saved from the indignity of work-related sexual advances. Sexual harassment as defined legally by the website Equal Rights Advocates as “unwelcome verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is severe or pervasive and affects working conditions or creates a hostile work environment” (par. 1). This said “hostile environment” is one of the primary benchmarks for alleged sex discrimination and perhaps the most damaging in its affect on the individual’s civil rights. As one might imagine, to be fired, refused a promotion, demoted or helpless to avoid a poor performance evaluation must be the worst consequence of this deliberate act. Even if the conduct does not result in such actions, constant sexual harassment interferes with work performance, in itself creating the said “hostile environment.” As example, repeated sexual comments unreported can make an individual so uncomfortable as to affect performance and subsequently lead to negative work assessments. No doubt, before Title VII, many a worker was dismissed without the full disclosure of what was going on, or even if it was, out of the control of the offended person. One can only imagine this situation. Sexual harassment is also legally defined as an overt and obvious form of sex discrimination, which means men are allowed--although in the nineties, statistically not as likely as women to do so -- file charges. Today, however, changes have occurred and more men are filing complaints. In 2006 the number of complaints by men sat somewhere around 1870; by 2009 it was up to 2,094. “The spike in male sexual harassment claims coincides with a recession that has hit men harder than women” (Mystal par 2-3). Statistics show that from 2008 to 2010 the number of men who lost their jobs was nearly double that of women. Using the state of Michigan as an example, where unemployment is high, the percentage of claims by men increased nearly 10 percent from 2007 to 2009. (Mystral par. 3). Whether men or women are filing, the conclusion is clear. Since the early nineties things have certainly changed in terms of attitudes toward what was once thought quite acceptable “normal” male/female, or female/male behavior in the workplace. There is a heightened consciousness in society concerning sexual harassment, and a relentless, much-needed, and well-overdue push toward "zero tolerance" of sexual harassment in workplaces, including the military. Those old enough can remember the well-publicized Tailhook scandal regarding sexual abuse and harassment against female military recruits, as well as suits brought against major corporations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), including Mitsubishi Motor Corporation for a consistent pattern of acceptance of harassment. Conclusions were clear: No one desiring a secure career in the private or public sector today can afford the attitude that may have once prevailed that sexual harassment is nothing but "harmless entertainment."Neither can any employer concerned about the potentially crippling financial consequences of liability for sexual harassment afford to look at it as "harmless social interactions to which only overly sensitive women would object." A case in point is that of Weeks v Baker & McKenzie, where a secretary who was harassed by a partner in a law firm recovered $50,000 in compensatory damages under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act from both the firm and the partner; $225,000 in punitive damages against the partner; and $3.5 million in punitive damages against the firm. The jury initially awarded $6.9 million in punitive damages against the firm, but this amount was reduced by the trial court. (Achampong, Preface X) The progressive rise in charges overall nationwide is born out in statistics that show a sharp increase in lawsuits from the early ninety’s from around 6, 900 to 18,000 by the end of the nineties. Recoveries by plaintiffs also rose, with average amounts awarded in the late 1980s resting around $182,000 rose to $250,000 by the end of the nineties after (1991) compensatory and punitive damages became available to sexual harassment plaintiffs…and when legal costs were taken into account” (Achampong, Preface X). Today, 15,000 reported cases are brought to the Equal Opportunity Commission each year. Most experts attribute this meteoric rise in complaints from the early nineties to one incident that so got the public’s attention as to change ideas not only about workplace harassment, but between whom and in what areas of employment it conceivably takes place. The case was that brought against now Supreme Court judge Clarence Thomas, who, though acquitted, is thought by many to this day of being guilty of harassing his legal assistant, Anita Hill, with discussions of sex acts and pornography in retaliation, she alleged, for her refusal to date him. The incident eventually degenerated into one person's word against another's. In the end, the Senate voted 52-48 to confirm Clarence Thomas as associate justice of the Supreme Court. While supporters of Hill’s complaint thought the decision a defeat, others view it as the benchmark for increased national awareness of the issue, bringing about a subsequent quadrupling of federal awards to victims from the early nineties to late nineties to $27.8 million dollars. While for a younger generation the Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky scandal represents the ultimate and most noteworthy incident of sexual activity, Lewinsky never filed such charges, so the incident is generally viewed as consensual. However, in analyzing the incident one might justifiably conclude that harassment may have been present. With lack of Lewinsky’s testimony to that affect, it can never be known for certain. Since then, it has become increasingly clear that sexual harassment in the workplace is unacceptable and that no person should have to suffer it under any circumstances. As an offense against a person’s civil rights, a 1988 study conducted by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board places the issue in context: Victims pay all the intangible emotional costs inflicted by anger, humiliation, frustration, withdrawal, dysfunctional family and other damages that can be sexual harassment's aftermath. Victims of the most severe forms of harassment, including rape, can face not only severe emotional consequences, but even the possibility of a life-threatening disease. Some victims may leave jobs for one with a poorer career path, to escape the sexual harassment." The same study concluded that the cost to the federal government resulting from sexual harassment was devastating as well--over a two-year period, the cost in lost productivity, as well as use of sick leave and job turnover, was $267.3 million. (Englander 1) Other statistics also present a dismal view. According to a 2011 AOL Jobs Survey, sexual harassment continues to be a pervasive force in the workplace, with one in six persons reporting they have been sexually harassed. … “of those harassed, 43 percent say it was from a manager and 51 percent say it was from a peer. Only 35 percent of people harassed reported it; women (47 percent) are more likely to do so than men (21 percent)” (Mahabeer par 2-3). This is not to say, however, that all is not lost on the successful progression of sexual harassment cases front. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which compiles yearly statistics on sexual harassment charges indicates tens of thousands of cases are filed each year and millions in damages are recovered.” In 2010 for instance, 11,717 charges were brought -- 83.6 percent from women -- yielding $48.4 million in monetary benefits (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation) for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals” (Mahabeer par. 7). The conclusion, while sexual harassment is an often difficult charge to prove, it is nonetheless provable by victims with proper documentation and evidence. In general, sexual harassment if not viewed favorably in courts, and it is often more a matter of the charged having to prove innocence than the victim offense. On the other hand, the law and decisions often favor an ambiguous idea of “reasonableness.” There is some disagreement, however, among courts and commentators about how to decide whether a given environment is bad enough to be considered illegal. Some courts argue that the question should be whether the environment is hostile when viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person. Others argue that, because women and men often view sexualized conduct differently, the issue should be whether a reasonable woman would judge the environment to be hostile or abusive. Therefore charging sexual harassment in the workplace can be a difficult path, one, however, that needs to be followed if we are to ensure the ultimate security and fair and equal work environment for all, sans the added pressure of sexual tension which exacerbates what at times can be stressful in itself without the added factor of a threatening and uncomfortable work environment Works Cited Achampong, Francis. Workplace Sexual Harassment Law: Principles, Landmark Developments, and Framework for Effective Risk Management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1999. Englander, Jeffrey P. “Handling Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. The CPA Journal. 62. 2 (February 1992): 14+ (www.questia.com) “Know Your Rights: Sexual Harassment at Work.” Equal Rights Advocates website, 2011. Available on: http://www.equalrights.org/publications/kyr/shwork.asp (Accessed June 20, 2011). Mahabeer, Pamela. “Sexual Harassment Still Pervasive in the Workplace.” AOL Jobs. Posted January 8, 2011 on: http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/01/28/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace/ (Accessed June 11, 2011). Mystal, Ellie. “Sexual Harrassment: It’s Not Just for Women Anymore.” Posted on Above the Law website, March 24, 2010 on: http://abovethelaw.com/2010/03/sexual-harassment-men/ (Accessed June 10, 2011) “Sexual Harassment Statistics in the Workplace.” Posted on http://www.sexualharassmentlawfirms.com/Sexual-Harassment-statistics.cfm (Accessed June 10, 2011). Read More