Workplace & Sexual Harassment
Workplace & Sexual Harassment
Historical Context of Sexual Discrimination Law
The current conceptualization of sexual discrimination law originates from a historical incident involving Rep. Howard Smith.
Smith attempted to derail the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by introducing an amendment to ban sexual discrimination in the workplace.
His belief was that the inclusion of this amendment would dissuade support for the entire Act.
Contrary to his expectations, the Civil Rights Act was passed, and with it, his amendment became a part of the law.
Since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination on the basis of gender and race has been rendered illegal (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).
Current Issues with Sexual Discrimination
Despite the legal protections against discrimination, such behavior persists.
Sexual harassment is identified as a prevalent form of workplace discrimination (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).
This form of discrimination has significant legal and social implications.
Types of Sexual Harassment
Catherine McKinnon, a Yale law professor, identified two primary types of sexual harassment recognized by law:
Quid Pro Quo:
Defined as an explicit exchange where compliance with sexual demands is necessary for employment benefits.
McKinnon states: "the woman must comply sexually or forfeit an employment benefit" (McKinnon, 1979, p. 48).
Hostile Environment Harassment:
Characterized by circumstances that render the workplace intolerable due to sexual harassment.
McKinnon defines it as a situation in which "sexual harassment simply makes the environment unbearable" (McKinnon, 1979, p. 48).
Challenges in Assessing the Prevalence of Workplace Sexual Harassment
Understanding the prevalence of sexual harassment in the workplace proves challenging due to various factors (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021):
Different studies may focus on varying types of harassment, complicating comparisons.
Some investigations require respondents to recall incidents from long ago, leading to distorted or inaccurate memories.
Rates of reported harassment can vary significantly, influencing the perceived prevalence.
Trends Observed in Sexual Harassment
The existing literature highlights key trends related to the experience of sexual harassment:
Vulnerability of Women:
Women are statistically more likely to experience sexual harassment compared to men, reporting rates two to four times higher.
Research indicates that 53% of working women report harassment by men while only 16% of men report harassment by women (Gutek, 1993, 2007).
The likelihood of experiencing harassment increases for women in male-dominated fields (Leshinen et al., 2011).
When men are victims of harassment, it is more often perpetrated by other men, generally involving different forms of harassment (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).
Typically, this involves lewd or obscene comments meant to belittle the victim's masculinity.
Definition and Legal Framework of Harassment
There is no universally agreed-upon list of behaviors that constitute sexual harassment, aside from severe cases such as sexual coercion or bribery, which are recognized as harassment by 99% of individuals (Shupe, 2019).
Ambiguity in Mild Behaviors:
Mild behaviors remain open to varying interpretations, which adds complexity to legal discussions.
Hostile Environment Harassment:
As the law has not operationally defined hostile environment harassment, a reasonable person standard is applied:
This involves assessing whether a reasonable person would deem the circumstances sufficiently severe and pervasive to qualify as hostile environment harassment (Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 1993; Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Inc., 1998).
According to the Supreme Court, for harassment to be legally recognized, it must be found "both objectively and subjectively offensive" (Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 1998, p. 787).
Psychological Impact of Sexual Harassment
Experiencing sexual harassment can lead to detrimental psychological effects for victims.
A study by Wright and Fitzgerald (2007) on 72 female plaintiffs in harassment lawsuits revealed the following emotional outcomes:
Victims reported feelings of:
Demoralization
Anxious arousal (i.e., heightened awareness or vigilance)
Fear
Self-blame
Coping Styles:
Victims typically utilize one of two coping strategies:
Internally-focused coping:
This involves managing emotional responses, often through denial or self-blame regarding their impact on the harasser's behavior.
Externally-focused coping:
This method aims to alter environmental conditions to prevent further harassment, involving actions such as avoiding the harasser, confiding in coworkers, or filing formal complaints.
Racial Discrimination in the Workplace
Workplace harassment can additionally occur on the grounds of race.
Survey data show a decline in overt racial prejudice (Gallup, 2020), but researchers highlight concerns regarding a new subtle form known as "modern racism" (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).
This form is less overt and conscious, where discriminatory actions are reframed as being unrelated to race.
Referencing earlier discussions on implicit bias, it is essential to recognize that even subtle, unconscious prejudice can inflict significant harm.
Evidence of Racial Discrimination in Hiring
A study by Dovidio and Gaertner (2000) addressed hiring decisions and highlighted disparities between Black and White applicants:
Hiring Rates for Qualified Applicants:
When both Black and White applicants were highly qualified, rates of hiring showed no discernible difference.
Hiring Rates for Poorly Qualified Applicants:
When both groups were poorly qualified, no discernible hiring differences were detected.
Ambiguous Applications:
In instances of ambiguous qualifications, White applicants were over 70% more likely to receive job offers.
This pattern suggests that a lack of additional information can lead to racial bias influencing hiring decisions.