Understanding and Minimizing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Essay Example

Males made up 15.9% of those who filed these charges. Furthermore, the EEOC addressed and resolved 11,731 sexual harassment charges during FY 2008. They were able to recover a total of $47.4 million in the form of monetary benefits for those who initiated the charges or those adversely affected, exclusive of any monetary benefits obtained through court proceedings (EEOC, 2010).

At present, the EEOC defines sexual harassment as undesired sexual approaches, demands for sexual favours, and any other sexual-related conduct, verbal or physical. Such conduct is classified as harassment when it meets the following conditions: (1) agreement to such conduct is presented, either directly or subtly, as a term of someone's employment, (2) one's acceptance or refusal of this conduct is used to inform employment-related decisions that affect them, (3) the said conduct intentionally or unintentionally hampers an individual's work performance or fosters an intimidating, inhospitable, or offensive work atmosphere (Tyner ; Clinton, 2010).

Later on, the legal system made the definition of sexual harassment easier to understand. It suggested that there are two main forms of illicit sexual harassment. The first one is known as quid pro quo, often recognized as the most straightforward method to establish a case of sexual harassment. In such cases, not responding favourably to a boss' sexual overtures can negatively influence what the EEOC refers to as a 'concrete employment action.' This includes aspects such as recruitment, dismissal, promotion, demotion, unwanted task assignment, benefits, remuneration, and job distribution (Dessler, 2008).

Recognizing the fact that quid pro quo can be excluded only by an individual with the authority to substantially influence employment decisions is crucial. The second form of sexual harassment, identified

as a Hostile Work Environment, can be established by any supervisor, colleague, client, supplier, or others whose actions are deemed unwelcome by the affected individual. This environment can stem from actions like talking about sexual pursuits, showing sexually suggestive images, or participating in unfavorable physical conduct.

Identifying if a sexual harassment scenario contributes to a hostile setting doesn't always possess the straightforwardness similar to a quid pro quo instance. Therefore, it's advantageous to comprehend what counts as a sexually hostile environment. "In order for behavior centered on gender to constitute a sexually hostile environment, it has to adhere to two more conditions: (1) it must be subjectively offensive to the person(s) impacted, and (2) it must be objectively intense or widespread enough to produce a work atmosphere that is abusive in the eyes of a rational individual" (Equal Rights Advocates).

Yet again, there is some uncertainty and a need for further discussion on what constitutes severe or pervasive behavior. To ascertain this, we will examine from the perspective of a court or jury who will undoubtedly consider the recurrence rate of the concerning behavior, the severity, whether it pose a physical threat or humiliation, the degree to which it disrupted work output, and the impact it had on the mental health of the employee.

The year 1981 marked the first instance when a U.S. court supported the EEOC’s stand that Title VII liability can be established for sexual taunts and advances which lead to a 'sexually hostile ambiance', regardless of any palpable job benefits being lost by the employee, as cited by Equal Rights Advocates. Following this, numerous victories occurred in court cases related to sexually hostile conditions,

including Robinson v. Jackson in 1991. In this case, as per Equal Rights Advocates, women were significantly outnumbered in the workforce, and experiences of coarse language, sexual graffiti and pornography were commonly reported in the employment environment.

Due to the potential subjectivity involved in identifying a hostile environment, it has been established through court verdicts that "sexual harassment depends on the perspective of the victim and is subjective because a behavior perceived as sexual harassment by one individual might be deemed acceptable by another" (Tyner & Clinton, 2010, p. 37). One of the earliest instances in the legal history when the idea of a 'reasonable person' was critically examined is the 1986 lawsuit Rabidue v. Osceola Refining.

The decision of this case favored the defendant, asserting that "indecent language and sexually themed posters did not create a work atmosphere deemed to be threatening, antagonistic, or insulting under the parameters" (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2006, p. 317). However, in Ellison v. Brady's 1991 case, the presiding judge didn't feel that the hostile environment created by pin-up posters and derogatory language had only a negligible impact on female staff, leading to the concept of a "reasonable victim."

The "Supreme Court has decreed it as inappropriate to employ a 'reasonable person' gauge, as it was formed by men" (Tyner & Clinton, 2010, p. 38). Hence, if the aggrieved party is a woman, the courts or jury utilize a reasonable woman benchmark. If the sufferer is a man, the benchmark switches to a reasonable man. The Ramifications of Sexual Harassment

It doesn't matter whether someone finds themselves in an adverse environment or dealing with quid pro quo, the fact remains that sexual harassment

is outlawed and can inflict massive effects on employees. It "can spawn physical and psychological turmoil for those who are targeted and, if not addressed properly, may also lead to substantial costs (due to absenteeism, staff changes, and plummeting productivity)" (Perry ; Kulik ; Field, 2009, p. 817). Therefore, it is not only ethically and morally requisite for a proprietor to safeguard their workforce from sexual harassment but strategically sound for the organization's finances to proactively counteract sexual harassment at work.

While the law doesn't explicitly spell out how employers should safeguard their workers from such instances, the majority of firms meet this requirement by implementing policies that prohibit sexual harassment in their workplaces. However, it isn't enough to just formulate these policies; it's equally crucial to communicate them to the workers, a task many companies accomplish via company-wide training sessions. In fact, some states have laws obliging employers to conduct sexual harassment training (Martucci & Lu, 2005). Implications for Employees

The mental impact of sexual harassment on an employee can linger for a long duration. Indeed, "gender harassment incidents correlate with physiological markers of heart-related and vascular reactivity suggesting a stress response" (Rospenda, 2005, p. 98). Speaking from personal experience, I know that job-related stress can result in not just serious physical consequences but also underperformance, injuries, and sickness. All these can incur hefty costs for the employers. It's crucial to note that the ramifications of sexual harassment extend beyond the exact timing of the occurrence.

Studies indicate that incidents like these still impact job satisfaction and mental health two years post-occurrence. Moreover, there is a proven correlation between "experiencing sexual harassment at a

certain point in time and resorting to health or mental health services a year later" (Rospenda, 2005, p. 99). In addition, it was discovered that sexual harassment is a stronger and more verifiable predictor of illness, injury, or assault risk than other work-related stress factors like work volume, and decision-making freedom.

Implications for Businesses While initially, it might appear that the impact of a sexual harassment scenario would only extend to the affected individuals, businesses may also experience significant damage. "Harassment can be detrimental not only to the victims' health, but also to the financial health of organizations through expensive worker's compensation claims" (Rospenda, 2005, p. 107).

Tyner (2010, p. 6) stated that the total financial compensation awarded for all sexual harassment complaints between 1992 and 2005 varied from $12.7 million to $50.3 million. Importantly, this figure does not account for any settlements made privately once a resolution of no reasonable cause was declared. It's also worth highlighting that the average payout per claim has seen an upward trend during these 14 years under review. In 1992, the average settlement was $1,205 while by 2005 it had escalated to $3,777 (see Appendix 1 for graphs depicting these Total Monetary Awards for Sexual Harassment).

Employer Obligations As previously noted, it's not just advantageous for employers to safeguard their employees against sexual harassment, but it is also a legal obligation. Title VII stipulates that employers are accountable for halting and averting sexual harassment within the workplace. Employers governed by Title VII have two primary responsibilities: (1) undertake sensible measures to prevent sexual harassment; (2) rapidly and carefully act to rectify any occurrences of sexual harassment when they transpire" (Equal

Rights Advocates). It's suggested that an employer maintains a distinct policy forbidding sexual harassment in the workplace and offers a straightforward method for employees to voice concerns. Upon receiving a complaint, the employer should prioritize promptly investigating and addressing the issue effectively.

In the event that an employer doesn't take action to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, a court could rule that the company didn't show due diligence. This would make them accountable for any ensuing harm. Although preventing such inappropriate behavior primarily falls on the employer, employees equally share this vital duty. If an employer isn't aware of incidents of harassment, they cannot be considered at fault. Therefore, it's essential for employees to adhere to established complaint mechanisms.

Often, individuals who have been sexually harassed stay silent due to the humiliation or misplaced self-guilt associated with the event. However, it is crucial that any type of sexual harassment should not be endured and it's essential for the affected individual to report this matter to their employer since ensuring employee protection from such intolerable conduct falls under their responsibility. The aggrieved individual also has an option to submit a discrimination complaint with a reputable government agency. As highlighted by Equal Rights Advocates, "Filing an official complaint of sexual harassment with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a requisite step if you intend on initiating legal proceedings in either federal or state court."

Equal Rights Advocates' website provides essential advice on the proper and improper conduct of an employee: * Recognize when a problem occurs. * Communicate clearly to the offender about your perception of their inappropriate behavior. * Explicitly articulate your desired or undesired outcome.

* Never blame yourself for someone else's deeds. * Unless the act is truly benign, do not ignore it. Non-Employee Sexual Harassment represents another type of confrontational situation that might be difficult for employers to handle, but they can still be held accountable.

The article discusses situations where sexual harassment stems from third-party individuals who are not part of the staff. These folks pose a problem as they do not fall under the company's policies against sexual harassment, nor can they avail themselves of the company-sponsored training on this issue. Despite this, legal precedent has established that employers may be held responsible for such improper behavior by non-employees. If an employer either condones or fails to intervene in time or take corrective action when it knew or should have reasonably been aware of such conduct, it can face liability (Hoft ; Thomson, 2007, p. 87).

The EEOC has established guidelines addressing cases that may stem from third-parties. It points out that an employer can be held accountable for inappropriate behavior by non-employees towards its staff in the workplace, if the employer or its representatives or higher-ranking employees, were aware or should have been aware of the behavior and did not promptly take suitable corrective action (Hoft ; Thomson, 2007, p. 88). Given employers' limited control over stopping a non-employee from creating a hostile environment, courts have employed a negligence approach to these cases.

Essentially, it is the responsibility of the employer to take proactive measures to prevent or tackle any improper incidents that their management reasonably should have been aware of. Failure to do so may be deemed negligence by the court, leading to accusations of sexual harassment.

My global work with Demographic Incidence Rates of Sexual Harassment has driven me to research the cultural differences in perceptions and understanding of sexual harassment. Each time I travel to a different country, it's vital for me to comprehend its culture and align my behavior with their customs.

Recognizing that sexual harassment can result in "psychological issues like stress, depression, and anxiety which subsequently reduce organizational performance and productivity" (Merkin, 2007, p. 277), it is crucial to recognize behaviors considered as sexual harassment across different cultural contexts. Research indicates that Latin American countries report the highest rates of sexual harassment experiences, with significant regional disparities noted. Chile has been identified as having the most substantial risk followed by Brazil and Argentina.

The most intriguing and beneficial part of my study pertained to certain universal demographics that appeared to influence the occurrence of sexual harassment. Concerning marital status, it was noted that "the instances of verifiable sexual harassment were higher among single women than married women in the US" (Merkin, 2007, p. 279). In addition, age was found to have an impact with younger respondents being more susceptible and therefore more likely to experience sexual harassment; "the maximum reports of sexual harassment came from individuals aged between 25 and 35" (Merkin, 2007, p. 80).

Furthermore, there is a correlation between a rise in education level and a decrease in sexual harassment experiences, but it's worth considering that this might be linked to the person aging and simultaneously achieving more advanced education levels. It's equally significant to recognize instances where men fall prey to sexual harassment; however, as highlighted by Merkin (2007, p. 281), "adult women remain the main

recipients of habitual sexual harassment behaviors such as unwelcome physical contact and invasion of privacy."

One significant observation is that in professional environments, women frequently identify both genders as potential harassers, while men typically only view other men as possible culprits and see women as less likely to engage in similar behavior. Recognizing these perspectives can be instrumental when analyzing your company's structure and establishing policies to prevent sexual harassment. I argue that the initial step should involve thorough training and education from both male and female perspectives. The Need to Address Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

The necessity of minimizing workplace sexual harassment cannot be overstated for all parties involved, but what methods can effectively accomplish this? The implications are not solely financial for employers; there's also the consideration that "sexual harassment may result in physical and emotional harm for victims, potentially leading to substantial costs associated with absenteeism, staff turnover, and decreased productivity" (Perry ; Kulik ; Field, 2009, p. 817). Furthermore, there exists a multitude of moral reasons why an employer should take steps towards reducing the likelihood of sexual harassment incidents.

My conviction is that the first step to instigate a shift in any group behavior starts from learning. Hence, I consider sexual harassment courses as the paramount solution to combat sexual harassment. Indeed, it's worth noting that "several states mandate employers to give sexual harassment training" (Perry & Kulik & Field, 2009, p. 818). Some bosses take additional precautions such as implementing prohibitions on office relationships or an idea known as "love contracts;" we are going to delve into these protective measures in the upcoming paragraphs.

There exists a variety of viewpoints on

the most effective method for introducing sexual harassment policies and training within a business. The impact appears to be more influential on an individual's inherent motivation to understand, if the training is optional as opposed to being obligatory by the firm. Moreover, sexual harassment training seems to have a more enduring effect when the organization instructs attendees on how the acquired knowledge can be practically applied to their present roles (Perry ; Kulik ; Field, 2009, p. 826).

Numerous training programs often suffer from limited evaluation capabilities, leading to inadequate understanding of the most effective material for such training. Today, a multitude of commercial computer software exists in the market. These programs can assess individual requirements, enhance the effectiveness of training, and minimize employers' legal worries. It's crucial to ensure the high quality of sexual harassment training. Implementing sexual harassment training of questionable quality could paradoxically make organizations more susceptible to legal disputes (Perry ; Kulik ; Field, 2009, p. 827). On the topic of Workplace Relationships Ban

The ongoing debate on whether workplace relationships contribute positively or negatively to a working environment, and if they raise the likelihood of sexual harassment claims still prevails today. Interestingly, I have first-hand experience with a workplace relationship as my spouse and I both resided and worked together at an orphanage in the Dominican Republic for a couple of years. Despite my personal belief that workplace relationships are healthy and natural, a lack of proper education may open doors to retaliation construed as sexual harassment when such relationships break down.

In our situation, my spouse and I adhered to rather stringent rules about expressing affection in public as we were part

of a Pentecostal orphanage. Such prior-established regulations possibly prevented any potential misconceptions within the community and our peers. This is why more corporations are opting for "love contracts," a topic we'll delve into in the upcoming section.

The topic still in question is whether prohibiting relationships in the workplace can curb the incidence of sexual harassment complaints. The primary concern of an employer who does not permit dating is essentially about sexual harassment allegations stemming from existing romantic relationships, as opposed to relationships that have not yet begun" (Boyd, 2010, p. 328). Such apprehension is instigated by the idea that should a workplace romance break apart, attempts at repairing the relationship by one partner could be perceived as harassment. A second factor fueling the worry about sexual harassment complaints is when there is a romantic involvement between a supervisor and their inferiors.

The possibility of colleagues pursuing lawsuits for sexual harassment due to actual or perceived favoritism is initiated by this. Predicting if such office relationships would escalate sexual harassment allegations is challenging, nonetheless, "95% of HR professionals identified 'prospect for accusations of sexual harassment' as a cause to prohibit or discourage romantic relationships at work" (Boyd, 2010, p. 328). The truth emerges when the study is completed, transforming the concern into a question of ethics and morality.

It's observed that annually, the US sees roughly 10 million new office love affairs compared to an average of 14,200 sexual harassment cases, showing a probability of one such claim for every 704 office romances. Notably, 44% of these office relationships culminate in marriage, while another 23% evolve into long-term partnerships. Given this data, I personally don't support prohibiting office

relationships. The energy spent on supervising office dating is disproportionate compared to the meagre 1 in 704 likelihood of a harassment accusation.