This topic is even further complicated by other gender stereotypes and roles that interfere with perceived flexibility, especially for women.

Due to this complexity, the first reference to address is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which effectively sought to eliminate negative or harassing behaviors, particularly as they related to race, gender, or ethnicity. Over time, as the legal implications of this broad definition of civil rights violations were found to be inadequate in certain alleged cases of sexual harassment (not simple sex discrimination} legal conditions had to further delineate more specifics about what does or does not constitute sexual harassment and even still, some cases are quite contentious and not universally accepted as legitimate due to the questionable nature of what truly defines this sort of harassment.

Several legal and ethics scholars have attempted to offer a broad but brief definition of sexual harassment that applies across sectors. One in particular, in addressing this issue of definition in the context of the workplace, Boland (2005) defines sexual harassment as being comprised of “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature” (p.204) and outlines that this is the case when the conduct in question is related to the security or integrity of one’s employment and/or if the harassing behavior has a negative influence on one’s ability to work. In short, sexual harassment is a wide-ranging problem and is best defined in its context as a sexual remark, gesture, advance, or even threat that directly influences one’s position (i.e. that they could face termination if they report it or do not submit to the advance) or makes them feel ill at east at the workplace.

The key word for sexual harassment in the workplace includes, most importantly the term “unwanted” in terms of the advancement, comment, gesture, or glance. This is especially severe if the unwanted action puts one’s employment in jeopardy if one does not submit to the advances. Furthermore, such harassment creates a hostile and offensive working environment for the victim and, if left unreported, can escalate into a situation that can result in a lawsuit eventually or one’s resignation, neither of which are desirable outcomes for either an organization or individual.

Sexual harassment takes many forms and while there is no form of sexual harassment at the workplace or elsewhere that is acceptable, instances of sexual harassment range from the minor infraction to overtly criminal acts that include sexual intimidation or inappropriate advances in the form of touching. The more common forms of sexual harassment in the workplace including making insensitive jokes of a sexual or, in some cases, highly gendered nature, sending harassing emails or having conversations at work of a sexual nature, commenting on a coworker or subordinate’s appearances and making advances through this form of unwanted flattery, and more importantly, any kind of touching that is not professional, desired, and that is sexual in nature. Actions such as these can include rubbing shoulders, smoothing hair, kissing or hugging when not appropriate (which is generally never appropriate in the workplace) and actions of a related nature. One of the most complex issues in addressing sexual harassment in a legal or punitive way in the workplace then is defining it, especially since it can include so many actions or verbal infractions that range in severity and intent.

Unlike in many other fields of inquiry, the statistics on workplace sexual harassment support certain truisms about sexual harassment in the workplace are more or less congruent with one another and support some overwhelming conclusions about who is often the victim and how companies and organizations are handling the situation. According to a report conducted by IOMA Human Resources Management (2002) which derived its data and sexual harassment statistics from the responses of 232 companies, recognition of sexual harassment issues is prevalent, although outside of this some interesting statistics on sexual harassment issues emerged. As of this report, which is based on data from 2002, 97% of the companies who responded claimed to have formal policies in place against sexual harassment and out of that number, the vast majority (over 70%) claimed to have updated and redistributed the updates within the past six to twenty-four months. According to these statistics, 88% of the companies who had formal processes in place claimed that there was a coherent written procedure for making claims of sexual harassment and that there were measures in place to aid in the investigation. While these are useful statistics, they are not necessarily surprising.

What is rather staggering about these statistics about sexual harassment at work, however, are a few of the supplemental results of this study that revealed that of the total number of complaints filed in all responding companies, 91% of them were made by women. Also of interest, in terms of the total number of complaints filed, 65% of them were made due to improper sexual conduct, 53% were based on verbal harassment, and the rest ranged from obscene materials, physical assault, and harassing emails. What emerges in these statistics should send up warnings to employers that men are the most common perpetrators of sexual harassment according to these figures since women are by far the most affected and that since the vast number of complaints were due to impropriety and verbal offenses, these should be the avenues most addressed in future training sessions and policy recommendations.

Related Articles

Types of Workplace Sexual Harassment : Verbal, Physical, Quid Pro Quo and Reasonable Person Standard

A List of Not So Obvious Things Every Employer Should Know About Sexual Harassment at Work

Contemporary Issues Facing Women in the Military

References

Boland, Mary L. (2005). Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. New York, New York: SphinxLegal.

IMOA. (2002). Sexual Harassment Survey: Vital Statistics. IOMA Human Resources Department Management Report, 2(1), 11-11.

Quid pro quo sexual harassment cases involve situations where the power structure at a given organization or company is used as a threat, either overt or implied. As Boland (2005) notes, there are two conditions that identify if a case is one falling under the category of Quid pro quo sexual harassment and these are that “1) An employee is subject to unwelcome sexual advances and 2) submission to the sexual advances is a condition of a job benefit or refusal to submit resulted in a detriment” (p. 30). This was one of the first types of sexual harassment cases heard at the Supreme Court level (Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477, U.S. 57) and set the standard for rulings on this severe type of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Given the shifting state of what constitutes sexual harassment as it changes from context to context, there is a great deal of confusion when it comes to identifying a case versus an invalid or illegitimate complaint. To help further increase the standards by which cases of sexual harassment can be assessed, the concept of the “reasonable person” has been used as a litmus test since the landmark 1993 case of Harris v. Forklift systems where the idea of what a general sense of harassment is. This is still a contested subject and results in some misconceptions about sexual harassment identification. One analysis of the “reasonable woman” standard offered by Risser (2008) in a peer reviewed human resources trade journal suggests that actions such as men calling women “bitches” or women being voted on based on their appearances or managers who “pantomimed masturbation” to a secretary are questionable acts of sexual harassment under the “reasonable person” declaration.

The author of the section just noted discusses how, in the case of the Court of Appeals that established the reasonable person standard, they ruled these types of actions as “not harassment because they were not ‘severe and pervasive’ and therefore did not create a hostile work environment” and that “a number of appellate courts are now using the ‘prime-time television standard’ which is something that if you can hear on television, it’s not harassment” (Risser 2008). While the definitions of a reasonable person are shaky at best, measuring what is acceptable behavior off of television shows does not seem to be a proper remedy to the question of what should be a behavioral standard in the professional context.

As a result of this unreliable although often-applied standard of the “reasonable person” it is more important than ever for organizations to take extraordinary care when crafting their policies regarding sexual harassment and even it some additions may seem redundant or over-the-top, by explicitly laying out all of the possible actions that are deemed inappropriate, the company can be best protect itself and its employees from a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment issues. In short, by presenting all possible scenarios, comments, or other actions that could be deemed appropriate in the guidebook, an employee or manager can easily flip through and see a list of inappropriate actions and comments. This will take time and constant revision but in the end will be quite work the trouble as the need to delineate across gray lines of harassment issues will have already been distinctly handled in the policy literature.

According the Federal Communications Commission’s Office of Workplace Diversity, “a hostile work environment is present “when unwelcome comments or conduct based on sex, race, or other legally protected characteristics unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance or creates an intimidating or offensive work environment” (2007). While a hostile work environment might be caused by many factors or be directed at one or more groups of people, in the case of sexual harassment, it is reasonable to assume that almost all of the qualifiers that a “reasonable person” would find offensive can quite easily lead to hostile or offensive work environment and thereby create a great deal of tension.

Related Articles

An Extended Definition of Workplace Sexual Harassment and Some Striking Statistics

A List of Not So Obvious Things Every Employer Should Know About Sexual Harassment at Work

Contemporary Issues Facing Women in the Military

References

Boland, Mary L. (2005). Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. New York, New York: SphinxLegal.

The Office of Workplace Diversity, (2007). Understanding Workplace Harassment : A Hostile Work Environment. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from Federal Communications Commission Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/owd/understanding-harassment.html.

Risser, R. (2008). Sexual Harassment Training: Truth and Consequences.Training & Development, 53(8), 21-2.

Highly publicized lawsuits and more publicly-stated stances on sexual harassment have caused a wide shift in many organizations and employers as increasing numbers of them are instituting sexual harassment policies and procedures as evidenced in the statistics above that suggest that will over 70 percent have definite formal policies in place. According to Boland (2005), “By the end of the 1980s, more than 90% of companies had been sued for sexual harassment and during a two-year period in the mid-1990s, sexual harassment cost the federal government (and taxpayers) more than $300 million. The Department of Labor estimates that private businesses lose around $1 billion annually due to sexual harassment” (p.61). Statements such as these, as well as the negative publicity associated with any tolerance of sexual harassment is a motivating factor, although there are still some who have not fomulated specific formal organizational policies or worse yet, who read them but not actually adhere to them. It is the best interest of a company and its employees to not only have, but enforce their sexual harassment policies.

A broad anti-harassment/positive environment policy that includes a statement that specifically addresses sexual harassment; a separate sexual harassment policy that covers all organizational members, and finally, two sets of separate sexual harassment policies—one that addresses non-management employees and one that addresses management” (Lightle and Doucet 2006). Communicating these policies can be another challenge as simply having the policies suggested above is not enough—employees and managers at all levels need to understand what the policies mean and what their implications are. Instead of just having these policies as something employees and management signs off on without every truly considering, there are other ways suggested to spread the word, including, as Lightle and Doucet (2006) note  “permanent posting on bulletin boards, memos, articles in the organization’s internal publications, meetings, training sessions” (33). Furthermore, these should not simply be one-time preventative measures, they should be regular parts of any company’s work environment and corporate culture and should serve as reminders to policies that many employees and managers should already have, at all times, in the back of their minds.

Aside from the more general recommendations above about having management tasked enforcing and adhering to formal anti-sexual harassment policies and courses of action, what remains as another important to address is the matter of what the best practice would be for an organization to prevent this negative behavior and its associated expensive and detrimental effects. To that end, the following are suggested based on this overview of the important elements of this offense, with the most critical emphasis being to establish procedures that are actually followed and that are suited to the receipt of complaints.

Every organization should have a senior official, preferably someone with management experience, to serve as the “czar” of these issues. Ideally, this person in a management position would undergo extensive external training (perhaps at a seminar paid for by the organization) so that he or she would be the company “expert” on these issues from a legal, personal, and company-culture perspective. This person would be trusted with handling sensitive and confidential information, of course, thus the decision would have to be handled by committee or other vote and regularly come under scrutiny. This person would aid in training for all levels, from managers to employees and would make it clear that there is an important component of confidentiality when reporting and following investigative or other procedures. There should also be an investigation process in place that potential reporters of harassment understood and most importantly, felt safe using and being part of, which again, boils down to the issue of confidentiality. With this in mind, it would also be important to provide alternate modes of reporting since each case of alleged sexual harassment is distinct in terms of the dominant concerns. Having this structure of hierarchy in place is an important first step in legitimizing a policy of anti-harassment in an organization and furthermore, allows for a greater sense of accountability in the event of a complaint. To complete this process of policy implementation and action, the last thing left is training and constant reminding through the techniques discussed previously.

With all of the above concepts in mind about sexual harassment policy and management, it should be clear that there are a multitude of actions, verbal or physical, that constitutes harassment and consequently can lead to a problematic work environment. If an employee feels he or she has been a victim of sexual harassment, the following guidelines serve as the proper course of action for reporting. 1) It is important to make certain that those harassing are told that the behavior is not acceptable and offensive; this statement of “no, this is unwanted behavior” to the offender is the most important first step in any case. 2) If this behavior continues, the victim should try to find as many witnesses to the harassment as possible. 3) In conjunction with step 2, the victim should file a report immediately with the person in charge of these issues of, if no one has been specifically delegated to this task, follow the directions in the company’s policy handbook for reporting this kind of repeated, harassing behavior. From this point, it is up to the organization to properly handle the situation using the person mentioned above as the mediator.

In conclusion, sexual harassment is a serious offense in a workplace as it causes a hostile and unpleasant working environment, which has large implications on productivity, employee satisfaction, rates of turnover and more importantly, legal and ethical issues that can become very costly to an organization, both in terms of legal costs and public image. Employers and management must be vigilant and look beyond the obvious when crafting anti-sexual harassment policy and more general harassment policies. Due to a prevalence in highly publicized (not to mention incredibly expensive) lawsuits against high-profile organizations and a greater effort by interest and civil rights groups, more companies are making sexual harassment policy implementation a priority and this should help raise awareness of these issues until they are eradicated.

Related Articles

An Extended Definition of Workplace Sexual Harassment and Some Striking Statistics

Types of Workplace Sexual Harassment : Verbal, Physical, Quid Pro Quo and Reasonable Person Standard

Contemporary Issues Facing Women in the Military