SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN WORKPLACE.   Term Paper ID:26674 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Legal analysis of major cases shaping definition & treatment of harassment & hostile work environment for both women & men.... More...

10 Pages / 2250 Words 7 sources, 10 Citations, MLA Format $40.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Legal analysis of major cases shaping definition & treatment of harassment & hostile work environment for both women & men. Paper Introduction: INTRODUCTION Sexual harassment in the workplace has always been a problem and has always been of great importance, but the public's awareness of the issue has not always been high. This changed radically with the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings in 1991 and with the accusations of sexual harassment leveled against him by Anita Hill. This event more than any other catapulted sexual harassment to a high position in the public consciousness and made it clear that such activities were degrading to women, harmful to the work environment, and detrimental to public policy. The fact that this problem had been underground for so long also showed that more knowledge of the subject was needed and perhaps that legislation was required to assure a harassment-free workplace in the future. However, precisely what defines Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. "Employment Law: New Rules for Same Sex Harassment." HR Magazine (1, June, 1998).Leo, John. This has contributed tothe conflicting decisions that have been handed down and to differencesseen between courts. CURRENT SITUATION Woerner and Oswald conclude that the current environment shows amixed picture of the situation. FederalCourt held that sexual harassment was actionable under Title VII and thatretaliatory acts by a supervisor toward a female employee for refusing hissexual advances constituted sex discrimination. (51 U.S. More cases of sexual harassment were beingreported to the EEOC, and it is suggested that the figures would be evenhigher if other avenues of retribution were counted, such as tort law andcollective bargaining agreements. The court's opinion focused on issues of proof. She eventually resigned her job. The Supreme Court has never held that workplaceharassment, even when it occurs between men and women, is automaticallydiscrimination "because of sex" merely because a harasser used words thatwere sexual or had sexual connotations. The Supreme Court, however, unanimously reversed, and for the firsttime, the Court unequivocally stated that same-sex harassment was unlawfulunder Title VII (Zachary). The courts started tochange direction later that year. Forklift Systems, Inc. TheCourt's decision resolved a conflict among several federal appellatecourts, which had disagreed as to whether employees had the legal right tobring claims of sexual harassment when they and their alleged harasserswere of the same gender. He finally quithis job and stated in his lawsuit that he asked that his termination slipstate that he voluntarily left because of sexual harassment. Works CitedFlaxman, Howard R. Two of thecrewmembers had supervisory authority, and the plaintiff stated that hiscomplaints were not addressed by supervisory personnel. SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF MALES Sexual harassment laws were written largely with women as victims inmind, but harassment of males has been on the increase so that these lawshave been deemed to apply to males as victims as well. Forklift Systems represents a fine-tuning--not a reconstruction--of sexual harassment and hostile working environment principles. This event more than any othercatapulted sexual harassment to a high position in the public consciousnessand made it clear that such activities were degrading to women, harmful tothe work environment, and detrimental to public policy. Supreme Court decision in Oncale v. in which twofemale employees claimed constructive discharge as a result of physical andverbal sexual advances, and the Arizona Federal District Court rejected thesuit as not being what was intended by the Act. This decision expanded sexual harassment law,though it was unclear what the precise effects the ruling would have onemployers. They must show only that their employerallowed a hostile or abusive work environment, within certain parametersdefining what is hostile: These may include 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 (Harris v. Public Service Electric and Gas Co., afederal court strengthened the Arizona argument. The authors do notdiscuss their views of how the courts operate or what makes them change asthey apparently did on this issue, but they imply that public consciousnessof the issue and public disapproval has an effect without offering anysupport for this view. News & World Report (November 29, 1993), 2 .MacArthur, Malcolm D. In Williams v. The 198 EEOC guidelinesdefined sexual harassment. At the same time, the apparent rejection of the "reasonable woman" standard favors employers by eliminating the requirement that a fact-finder must review workplace conduct from the exclusive perspective of a female employee (Flaxman and Jackson 19).What the Court has not done is provide a definition that is clear enough toavoid ambiguities and to give employers a proper guideline. However, precisely what definessexual harassment has had to be determined by legislation and courtdecisions and so has shifted over the past several years. Sex discrimination was not included in the original draft of thislegislation but was added at the last minute as an attempt to preventpassage of the Act. Itgenerally means "unwanted sexually oriented behavior by someone in theworkplace." It is legally defined as a form of discrimination. They support the changes they perceive as having taken placewith reference to specific cases that do indeed show the courts alteringdirection over time. is whether membersof one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employmentto which members of the other sex are not exposed" (Jarin and Pomfret). Until 1981, sexual harassment suits wererestricted to tangible losses, and the term itself was rarely used. The fact that thisproblem had been underground for so long also showed that more knowledge ofthe subject was needed and perhaps that legislation was required to assurea harassment-free workplace in the future. Theplaintiff's claim was dismissed by the trial court because prior caseswithin the court's jurisdiction held that same-sex harassment was notactionable under Title VII, and this decision was upheld by the circuitcourt. As a result, the true intent of Congress in the matteris not known. Business has stated that this makes it difficult to conform to the law,given that it keeps changing, but in fact the essential point that sexualharassment is wrong and is to be eliminated has not changed. Tomkins was also overturned that year, establishing twonecessary elements for a prima facie case: 1) sexual advances were imposedas a condition of employment; and 2) these sexual advances were imposed bythe employer in a sexually discriminatory manner. Plaintiffs do not have to prove that they suffered anemotional injury any longer. "New-age Sexual Harassment: An Increasing Number of Victims Are Men or Same-gender Workers." Industry Week 244 (15 May 1995), 64-66.Woerner, W.L. The decision in Harris v. This changed radically with the Clarence Thomasconfirmation hearings in 1991 and with the accusations of sexual harassmentleveled against him by Anita Hill. Forklift Systems, Inc. and S.L. Up to 199 , the Supreme Court only addressed the issue of sexualharassment once in a 1986 case, Meritor Savings Bank v. CONCLUSION The law states that sexual harassment is not to be tolerated, but thedefinition of what constitutes sexual harassment changes from time to time. The 1977 case of Barnes v.Costle held that the plaintiff could establish a prima facie case byshowing that sexual favors were requested by the supervisor as a factor injob-retention. They also show how important it is for there to be a legislativehistory on which the court can base any decision. 998), which held that employers may be held liable for same-sex harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. and Brian F. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Another issue that has been raised concerns whetheran employer is liable if the unwelcome sexual advances are made by anindividual who does not have supervisory responsibility over the victim,and generally the court has found that the employer is not liable in such acase. INTRODUCTION Sexual harassment in the workplace has always been a problem and hasalways been of great importance, but the public's awareness of the issuehas not always been high. HOSTILE WORKPLACE The Supreme Court made a decision in Harris v. LEGAL ISSUES The topic has evolved in the lower courts based on Title VII of theCivil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual discrimination in the workplace. The firstcourt ruled in favor of the bank stating that Vinson was a willingparticipant, as she admitted. On appeal the U.S. Following Justice Ginsberg'sconcurring opinion in Harris v. The article hints at the dynamic that exist between legislation onthe one hand and court decisions on the other when Woerner and Oswald notethat there was a lack of legislative history on this issue. How one views this case andits effects may be determined by whether you are an employee concernedabout sexual harassment or an employer concerned about being sued. A major ruling in terms of harassment on the job came in March 1998in the U.S. Justice AntoninScalia wrote a separate concurring opinion and said that Justice O'Connor's"hostile or abusive standard gives little guidance to judges and juries whomust decide whether conduct is egregious enough to warrant an award ofmoney damages. The future direction the issue may take isunpredictable. Sundowner Offshore Services, a formerroustabout on an off-shore oil platform sued for sex discrimination,claiming that he was forcibly subjected to a series of humiliating andsexually-related actions by three of the eight-man crew. . . Jackson, "New Considerations for Hostile Working Environment." HR Focus (March 1, 1994), 18-19.Jarin, Kenneth M. Between 199 and1994, the number of sexual-harassment complaints filed by men with theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) tripled from 481 to nearly1,5 , while total yearly complaints doubled to 14,42 . "An Empty Ruling on Harassment." U.S. Saxbe the D.C. For instance, employees who claim they wereharassed by an individual of the same sex must still show that they wereharassed because of their sex, rather than for some other,nondiscriminatory reason. Businessneeds to do whatever it can to control employees and the nature of theworkplace itself to avoid running afoul of the law today. 17, 25,1993), the court stated that "[t]he critical issue . Without such a history,as in the case of sexual harassment, the courts are in effect deciding whatthe legislative history would be if it existed. Another type ofharassment on the increase is homosexual harassment, and same-gender,hostile-environment harassment, in which a man (or a woman) creates ahostile environment for other workers of the same gender by braggingconstantly about sexual activities, or continuing to use offensive languageor pinups even after a complaint is made (Verespej 64). Forklift Systems, Inc.which refined and expanded the concept of the hostile workplace. It has evenexpanded to cross gender lines and to see harassment not in direct actionbut in a hostile environment. The issue of a hostile environment was raised in these cases as well,and differing interpretations of the meaning of this have been handed downby different courts. They do not say this, but theypresent surveys in the midst of their discussion and then show how thecourts changed direction after that. The authors found that the lack ofconsistency in court decisions was understandable given the difficulty indefining sexual harassment. (118 S.Ct. Woerner and Oswald examine the court response to the issue. They analyzethe cases that have been handed down and show how the attitude of the courthas changed. "Same Sex Harassment." HR/OD (1 October 1998). Perhaps there is no way to explain that, and Woernerand Oswald clearly do not have an explanation that can be supported. The1981 case of Bundy v. "Sexual-harassment Ruling Prompts Need for Clear Policy." Paper, Film & Foil Converter (March 1, 1994), 58.Verespej, Michael A. The overall analysis, though, gives a good sense of the state of thelaw regarding this issue at the time the article was written and shows howthe law has been shaped and guided by court decisions and legislationalike. Vinson. The Supreme Court rejectedthe stricter standard used before; it had required plaintiffs to show"severe psychological injury" brought on by a hostile work environment.Now, the Court says that other factors should be involved, among them thedegree to which the employer's behavior might be considered physicallythreatening or demeaning or whether that behavior interfered with the workof the employee. Court for the District ofColumbia reversed this ruling and found Capital Savings liable based onEEOC guidelines. and Ellen K. "Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A View Through the Eyes of the Courts," Labor Law Journal, 786-793.Zachary, Mary-Kathryn. Woerner and Oswald analyze the issue in a legal journal and considerthe legislative history and the court decision. While it may seem that theauthors are in favor of laws on sexual harassment, they never so state anddo not appear to shape their discussion to support that idea. Jackson created in the courts an awareness of acorrelation between sexual harassment and "hostile working environments."The attitude of the courts had by now changed dramatically, and the generalpublic had also become more enlightened, as indicated by various surveys. The court found that the employer and his agent areinseparable, negating any defense on the part of the employer, and that awoman need not prove resistance to sexual overtures to establish a TitleVII claim of sexual harassment. actually gavesomething to both sides: The Supreme Court's ruling in Harris vs. Woerner and Oswald organize their material in a clear fashion,beginning with the legislation on which all subsequent cases have beenbased and then moving through the state courts to the federal courts andfinally to the Supreme Court, the same route that would be taken by anylitigation. Forklift 371). Some feared that the ruling might ultimately create morequestions than it answered. Sundowner Offshore Service,Inc. In the 1976 case Tomkins v. By not requiring proof of psychological harm, the Supreme Court made it easier for plaintiffs to succeed in hostile environment harassment suits. The authorsmay be assuming that their readership knows what this means--that thecourts lack the necessary guidance based on a legislative history to knowthe intent of Congress and thus to decide the issue in part based on thatintent--but Woerner and Oswald do not make this overt in their discussion.That issue alone explains much of the confusion in the court decision, butit does not explain why the courts began to change direction seemingly as agroup or why subsequent decisions had a specific attitude quite counter towhat had gone before. He said that would invite more litigation" (MacArthur 58).Some critics of the decision believe the Court did little to solve theproblems involved: The Supreme Court's sexual harassment decision was short, fast, unanimous and vague--four strong indicators that the court was determined to duck the prickly issues involved (Leo 2 ). The first case litigated under this statute was Barnes v.Train some ten years after passage, and the District Court of the Districtof Columbia rejected the suit as not being the type purposed by the Act.The next case was a year later in Corne v. Employers can take heart from this ruling to the degree that theparameters have now been set more clearly, giving employers guidelines tofollow and so ways to avoid problems down the road, though many employersdo not see the issue this way, noting, "The court sent a message that ittakes sexual harassment seriously--even if it can't say exactly what it is" (MacArthur 58). The authors imply that changes in the public mind,based on surveys, influenced the courts. In that case, a young woman was repeatedly subjected to sexualinnuendo and demeaning comments by the president of the company over a two-year period. Pomfret. This hasmade it easier to win sexual harassment suits. It is not at all clear that there isa cause-and-effect relationship at work, however. Under Title VII, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)can pursue a case on behalf of a plaintiff. In the case of Oncale v. Theybegin with the fact that sexual harassment is difficult to define. Oswald (November 199 ). If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.