Sexual Harassment

The issue of sexual harassment has been prevalent throughout this country from the office of the President of the United States, throughout military services, and among educational institutions. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sexual harassment is a form of discrimination and although it is an offense committed by both females and males in assorted measures, it is predominately committed by males against females.

Despite widespread publicity about the perils of sexual harassment, surveys demonstrate that many businesses operating in the United States have yet to address the problem. Moreover, recent news reports indicate that sexual harassment has reached the highest levels of management. The concept of sexual harassment has been around since the mid-1970s. Today, both classifications of sexual harassment are claimed against men and women, resulting in a potential major loss for a company. The workplace is a place where one should feel comfortable. Yet while creating this comfortable atmosphere, workers should not feel like they have to constantly watch what they say. This is where the issue of sexual harassment can get dangerous because what is not offensive to one person may be for another. Eventually, this may end up affecting the working woman. As a female this is what is most disturbing. This is why there needs to be clear cut definitions of what sexual harassment actually is.

Federal law recognizes two different forms of claiming sexual harassment under Title VII. The first is quid pro quo. Under the quid pro quo form of harassment, a person in authority, usually a supervisor, demands sexual favors of a subordinate as a condition of getting or keeping a job benefit. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, guidelines define sexual harassment generally as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. In quid pro quo cases, the offense is directly linked to an individual's terms of employment or forms the basis for employment decisions affecting the individual. Usually, such cases are easy to recognize the first sexual harassment lawsuit under Title VII was decided on quid pro quo grounds.

When such harassment occurs, the subordinate has the legal right to take the employer to court. “Because courts follow the doctrine of respondent superior, the company is held strictly liable even if it had no knowledge of the conduct” (Roberts). An example of this type of harassment is the case of Lelia Bush v. Astra AB. A pharmaceutical company recently agreed to pay $9.85 million to settle claims that its president and other executives pressure female employees for sex. The settlement is the largest ever obtained by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The $9.85 million was split among 79 women and a man who said he was for speaking out.

Frequently, a quid pro quo situation does not exist. Many sexual harassment victims are never threatened with termination or lack of advancement. Rather, they suffer repeated abuse by a hostile work environment, which is an alternative ground for bringing a Title VII sexual harassment action. A hostile work environment arises when a co-worker or supervisor, engaging in unwelcome and inappropriate sexually based behavior, renders the workplace atmosphere intimidating, hostile, or offensive. An example case of hostile work environment can be seen in the Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. This case consisted of a shipyard company that employed a female welder who was continually subjected to nude and partially nude pictures posted by her male co-workers. The men posted these pictures not only in common areas, but also in places where the victim would have to encounter them, including her toolbox; referred to her as baby, sugar, and dear; and wrote obscene graffiti directed at the victim all over the plant. The victim complained about this atmosphere of harassment on a number of occasions, but the company's supervisory personnel provided little or no assistance. The court found this conduct violated Title VII because the harassment was based on sex, it affected a term or condition of her employment, and the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take remedial action.

Sexual harassment had basically been dormant until October 1991, until Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. Anita Hill, a law professor who had once worked with Thomas, nearly derailed his 1991 nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court with accusations of sexual harassment and inappropriate workplace comments. Hill alleged that Clarence Thomas had occasionally asked her out, talked about porno movies, and joked about a pubic hair on a soda can. Anita Hill testified at the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings that would appoint him to the Supreme Court Justices. Throughout the course of her testimony, some members of the 98% male panel directly attacked Hill’s motives and attempted to discredit her. Therefore, during Thomas’ confirmation hearings, the U.S. Senate did not find merit in the charges and the politically conservative Thomas became a member of the country’s highest court and ultimate arbitrator of law.

After the Clarence- Hill case, national awareness about sexual harassment in the workplace heightened considerably. According to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filings, sexual harassment cases have more than doubled, from 6,127 in 1991 to 14,420 in 1994. Over the same period, awards to victims under federal laws nearly quadrupled, from $7.7 million to $27.8 million. Before 1991, sexual