Back to James N. Jorgensen Articles

Although all of the above behavior may be carried out in different degrees of subtlety, such gestures are forms of sexual harassment. This behavior can result in the destruction of the harasser's career and devastating damages against the employer.

It is crucial that an employer be able to recognize and educate his workers about sexualharassment. It is equally important that an employer take affirmative steps to minimize his liability exposure resulting from potential sexual harassment claims, and take appropriate action once a sexual harassment complaint is lodged.This article, the first of a three-part series, looks at how to recognize sexual harassment. The second article will focus on affirmative action an employer can take to minimize his liability exposure resulting from sexual harassment claims. The third article will examine appropriate employer action once a sexual harassment claim is filed.

The federal government views sexual harassment in a work environment as a form of sexdiscrimination and a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967, which prohibitsdiscrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) first defined sexual harassment in 1980 and currently recognizes two basic categories.First, quid pro quo (i.e., "something for something") harassment occurs when an employerthreatens an employee with job-related consequences such as fmring, demotion or an unwelcome change in job responsibilities if he or she does not submit to "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature" initiated by another employee. Second, "hostile environment" harassment occurs when the same behavior

"has the purpose of effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, or hostile working environment."

In June 1986, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a " working environment" could constitute sexual harassment and that for an employer to be liable the victim need not suffer "economic loss." The Court also held that a victim can sue for either aggressive or subtle sexual harassment. The Court held that sexual harassment may be considered "unwelcome" even if the victim submits to it. Since then, other federal courts have sought to interpret and clarify "hostile working environment" harassment.Finally, in November 1993, in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled acourt should look at "all the circumstances" surrounding the conduct in question, including whether the behavior is frequent, severe, physically threatening or humiliating, or an unreasonable with an employee's work performance. The Court further held that an employer was in violation of federal law if a "reasonable person" would find the workplace to be a hostile and abusive environment due to sexual misconduct. Significantly, the court also ruled that a prima facie sexual harassment claim can be asserted "before the harassing conduct leads to a nervous breakdown."

Even a cursory review of federal court and EEOC decisions reflects the broad range ofbehavior covered by the term "sexual harassment." Such conduct includes the following behavior:

-sex-based conduct: degrading abuse or gender-related insults;

-non-verbal conduct: display of nude or semi-nude bodies, pornographic or sexually-suggestive pictures, objects or written material, leering, whistling or making sexually-suggestive gestures;

-physical conduct: unwanted or uninvited physical contact such as touching, patting,pinching or brushing against an employee;- verbal conduct: unwanted or uninvited flirtation, suggestive remarks, sexually-suggestiveinnuendo or dirty jokes.

Sexual harassment, especially in instances of "hostile working environment" cases, is noteasily detected. Moreover, courts have been liberal in allowing juries to decide sexual harassment claims and, if necessary, award damages. Hence, employers must be able to recognize sexual harassment and to the extent possible, minimize liability exposure to potential sexual harassment claims. Otherwise, the employer is exposed to a significant, and potentially devastating risk from sexual harassment claims.