Sexual HarassmentSexual HarassmentIn today’s work environment, sexual harassment is dominating the atmosphere. The harasser or victim can be of any race, sex or national origin. The purpose of this report is to make individuals aware of what sexual harassment is, who is affected and the precautions to file a claim. It is necessary to inform employees of their rights and responsibilities of sexual harassment. This research was gathered from articles posted on EBSCO host and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website.
What is sexual harassment?Unwelcome sexual advances, asking for sexual favors and other physical or verbal conduct of a sexual endeavor constitute sexual harassment. It can be executed either implicitly or explicitly, affecting an individual’s employment atmosphere. Sexual harassment disrupts employees work performance or produces an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. It is a form of sex discrimination with no tolerance, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (11).
Title VII enforces the constitutional right for the United States to provide conclusive deliverance against discrimination, institute prosecution to save constitutional rights, facilitates public education and aid in establishing an Equal Employment Opportunity.
“It shall be unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or just labor management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on the job training programs to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training (11).”
One man or woman’s idea of a compliment or clever observation can start grotesque controversy. Using sexist provisions, remarks about body parts, initiating sexual advances, spreading rumors about one’s sexual activity or identity are all examples of sexual harassment (10). It occurs when a person of a higher power in a relationship, such as a supervisor harasses an employee. Anyone influenced by the vulgar conduct can be a victim of sexual harassment. The harasser’s behavior must be unconsenting and can occur without economic injury or expelling of the victim. Sexual harassment also includes actions that are criminal in nature, such as sexual assault, stalking and rape (11).
Sexual harassment is characterized in two forms, “Quid Pro Quo” and “Hostile Environment.” Creating a hostile environment is the more common of the two. Although they are labeled separately, they often occur together (5).
“Quid Pro Quo”, translates into “something for something”. It happens when employment decisions about discipline, hiring, promotion, termination, or transfer are made firmly on the rejection or submission of unwelcome sexual actions. The intentions must be “unwelcome” and does not have to occur on the job premises to be labeled illegal. The term “unwelcome” behavior, however it demonstrates a difficult legal interpretation (11). As a general rule, courts have established “unwelcome” actions to be illegal if “the employee did not solicit the conduct she regarded as offensive and submitted to sexual demands for fear of some form of retaliation (5).”
A “Hostile Environment” is when one is subject to abusive and demeaning treatment, which directly affects their ability to perform their job (5). Depending on the type of work being done, the sense of distraction may create safety implications (2). After the 1993 lawsuit of Harris vs. Forklift Systems, the United States Supreme Court established four factors to distinguish a “hostile environment.” They are, frequency, conduct was blatantly offensive or severe, physically threatening or isolated verbally and whether it interfered with their work performance (5).
Who does it affect?Sexual harassment occurs in various places of employment. Recent high-profile lawsuits involve public school teachers, religious organizations, military personnel, and government officials. A prime example of a claim filed against a government official would be the highly publicized suit between President Bill Clinton in 1998 by assistant Monica Lewinsky. This issue gained more attention in light of Lewinsky’s acquisitions (1). Many accuse Lewinsky of false accusations, stating that her actions were to draw attention and publicity to herself, along with a healthy monetary settlement. Such incriminations were made when a suit was filed against Montel Williams for sexual harassment. Two former female employees stated they had “fallen victim to an abusive and sexually hostile working environment, wildly out of control, to which they objected
.
Why is it necessary to identify and investigate these men?
The National Center for Justice’s survey of current and former DOJ employees does not focus on alleged sexual misconduct, in order to conduct a rigorous analysis. Although it is possible for one or more of these men to claim a sexual assault, their criminal or civil claims cannot be considered because of their sexual orientation and because their employment has generally been regarded outside the DOJ under the NCAJ definition of a “sexual harassment” (2).
Other questions, such as whether the plaintiffs’ employment is considered to have been sexually harassing (3) or retaliatory, are also of concern.
In the report, the FBI’s Office of Civil Rights found that one, Michael D. Wilsey, had been charged as an employee of a California public school at the time of his alleged sexual touching with a female teacher on July 18, 1995, in the classroom of an employee union-sponsored school.
The FBI’s analysis did not find significant differences in the level of victimization as a whole as a function of sexual orientation, educational attainment, or years or prior to any criminal offense (4).
In this analysis, the FBI also did not consider the possibility that these same sexual harassers may retaliate, in a manner contrary to established federal law or conduct that would produce an appearance of abuse or harassment under an NCAJ statute. Instead, it focused specifically on the extent that the victims claimed victimization by either male or female perpetrators.
The FBI found that one male accuser (who was under 16 at the time of their allegation) was charged two years later, in 1997, with statutory rape and one other sexual assault, and that they had been under the influence of alcohol—the subject of some of the most comprehensive and detailed legal claims by plaintiffs to date.
Accordingly, the report found that the FBI examined more than a third of the plaintiffs, looking to determine if the claims are true (5). While the FBI does not address how one criminal charge for sexual assault impacts the extent of the evidence used to convict a defendant in this case, the reports found that the accused had been the subject of physical, emotional, or emotional harm to the victim, or threatened or injured the safety of the public.
What if I say something that has had that chilling effect on me?
It is unknown how the same thing will impact these victims. In fact, as the report stated, the report did not assess whether the sexual assaults could be prevented or ameliorated by law enforcement. Furthermore, the FBI would not be able to determine if the sexual harassment and retaliation claim is true.
As discussed above, the FBI is not entitled to determine whether a person’s conduct caused the actions identified in this study, for other reasons. The report also concluded that, although cases may be brought against police, civil, or military personnel in criminal cases, their employment is not subject to federal law.
The FBI may not find that an individual acts under any other sanction for the conduct alleged by the alleged victim and should not be considered if the alleged victimization has no meaningful, specific, monetary recovery, such as monetary compensation for physical injuries or mental anguish, as well as monetary restitution to the plaintiff. However, if the sexual harassment claims are not brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the defendant did initiate, or could initiate, an investigation, the use of the use of the NCAJ statute has to