Dignity and Discrimination: Toward A Pluralistic Understanding of Workplace Harassment

Part I of this article briefly examines some of the drawbacks and inconsistencies of Title VII sexual harassment jurisprudence and shows that Title VII does not provide an adequate framework for understanding many common forms of workplace harassment. Title VII is unquestionably a critical means of fighting against workplace discrimination; however, by emphasizing discrimination at the expense of dignity, the Title VII workplace harassment paradigm provides an incomplete understanding of the wrongs of workplace harassment. Part II of this article asserts the importance of an approach to sexual harassment that distinguishes between the nature of the harm of workplace sexual harassment (a dignitary harm) and the context in which the harm occurs (a context of discrimination against women). A pluralistic understanding of workplace harassment permits the provision of legal remedies for workers of any sex or sexual orientation who suffer from abusive treatment (whether sexual or nonsexual in nature), while still recognizing that workplace harassment occurs in patterned ways and has historically operated to exclude women, in particular, from equal access to social, political, and economic power. While Title VII highlights the discriminatory--and often sexist--motives and patterns in many cases of workplace harassment, harassment is not a matter of concern only when sexual. Further, the claim that workplace harassment is a group harm that only affects women is too simplistic. First, as Vicki Schultz has eloquently argued, not all discriminatory workplace harassment of women is sexual in nature. Second, men as well as women can be subjected to harassment and abusive treatment at work. A pluralistic understanding of workplace harassment must reflect these insights. Part III of this article contends that common-law tort causes of action provide a promising way to address the dignitary harm element of classic cases of sexual harassment, those involving male harassers and female victims. Twenty years ago, feminist scholars such as MacKinnon considered--and rejected--this approach. Dismissing a tort approach in this manner, while understandable in 1979, now does a disservice to women and other harassment victims. Moving beyond classic cases of sexual harassment, Part III of this article also argues that common-law tort causes of action contain the germ of a more general right to be free of severe dignitary harm in the workplace and that the changing social meaning of work should be deemed to create special duties for employers in protecting all workers from workplace harassment, sexual and nonsexual. Part IV defends this approach against several possible objections. These objections include the group harm objection, the rigid courts objection, the liability and preemption objection, and the civility code objection. Finally, Part V demonstrates why a pluralistic understanding of workplace harassment would benefit all workers while strengthening feminist efforts to protect women from workplace discrimination. A pluralistic approach to workplace harassment--one that combines the use of Title VII, where appropriate, with tort causes of action--has three important benefits. First, such a pluralistic approach allows for legal remedies for the many workers who experience severe harassment on the job, but who would be hard-pressed to assert that their harassment was because of sex, as required by even the most expansive reading of Title VII. Second, a pluralistic approach keeps the primary focus of Title VII where it should be: on addressing the problem of widespread workplace discrimination against members of less powerful groups, such as racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, and, of course, women. Third, grounding understanding of the sexual harassment of women in a notion of dignitary harm as well as in a discrimination paradigm makes a critical political and philosophical point: The workplace harassment of women is wrong not because women are women, but because women are human beings and share with all other human beings the right to be treated in the workplace with respect and concern

Stopping Sexual Harassment in the Empire State: Past, Present, and a Possible Future

This report maps current patterns of workplace sexual harassment and their impact in New York State. It also provides a broader frame for understanding how efforts to confront sexual and gender-based harassment and assault have evolved over time, and charts possible directions for future organizing, policy, and research in New York and beyond. The findings presented here are drawn from the 2018 Empire State Poll, an annual statewide survey of 800 New Yorkers conducted by the Cornell Survey Research Institute. Questions added to the survey reflecting existing legal definitions of workplace sexual harassment reveal the following: 10.9 percent of New York residents have experienced quid pro quo workplace sexual harassment, and 21.9 percent have experienced workplace sexual harassment that created a hostile work environment; 31.1 percent of women and 18.9 percent of men have experienced at least one of these forms of harassment. 13.9 percent of people of color and people of Hispanic origin have experienced quid pro quo workplace sexual harassment, as opposed to 8.5 percent of non-Hispanic whites. 38.9 percent of those experiencing at least one form of workplace sexual harassment say it impacted their work or careers; 48.9 percent who experienced quid pro quo harassment reported such an impact. 83.4 percent of New York residents think their leaders should do more to address workplace sexual harassment. There is notable variation by politics and ideology, but regardless of worldview, strong majorities think leaders should do more. In addition to sharing the survey findings, the report discusses experiences and responses of survivors and how they are shaped by different identities and relations of power. It highlights black women’s leadership in propelling wide-reaching shifts in law and culture; efforts initiated by diverse survivors to effect change in specific industries; and culture change work engaging men and women as allies

Half of Women in New Hampshire Have Experienced Sexual Harassment at Work

In this brief, authors Kristin Smith, Sharyn Potter, and Jane Stapleton discuss the results of a 2018 Granite State Poll survey conducted by the University of New Hampshire on workplace sexual harassment in New Hampshire. They report that over half of women and nearly one-quarter of men in New Hampshire have been victims of sexual harassment at their workplaces during their lifetimes. Women are more likely to state they suffered work-related consequences (for example, financial loss, being fired or demoted) than men, but similar shares reported quitting their jobs as a result of the harassment. Sexual harassment is problematic for the workplace, as it reduces worker morale and job satisfaction, diminishes productivity, and increases absenteeism and worker withdrawal. The authors suggest that employers would do well to invest in prevention, such as bystander intervention training, and encourage victims’ use of supports to mitigate the negative effects of workplace sexual harassment

The Efficacy of New York\u27s Qualified Prohibition on NDAs and Reforms that Can Protect Sexual Harassment Survivors

The numerous sexual harassment scandals that were uncovered following the Harvey Weinstein exposé have at least one very positive byproduct: new state legislation aimed to protect and combat sexual misconduct in the workplace. New York is leading the charge by creating a legislative framework that protects a broader spectrum of workers against sexual harassment in the workplace. The State’s 2019 fiscal year budget substantiates the commitment to empower survivors and protect those who may be future targets of sexual harassment in their workplaces. As part of this framework, the State’s human rights laws now extend to and protect independent contractors, who ordinarily would have limited federal protections against sexual harassment because they are ineligible for Title VII protection. In another forging step, New York now prohibits employers from including or agreeing to include a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) in a settlement agreement regarding a sexual harassment claim, unless the employee seeks the confidentiality. This prohibition is a step in the right direction as new data shows the increasing prevalence of NDAs in the workplace, often silencing instrumental employee speech

Reality Check: Seventeen Million Reasons Low-Wage Workers Need Strong Protection from Harrassment

In a recent five-to-four decision in Vance v. Ball State University, the Supreme Court watered down workplace protections from harassment. The Court held that supervisors who direct daily work activities - but lack the power to hire and fire - are mere coworkers, and that the tougher legal standard that applies in cases of coworker harassment also applies to harassment by these lower-level supervisors. The Court's cramped definition of supervisor ignores workplace realities, with negative consequences for millions of workers.The reality is that most lower-level supervisors have significant authority over their subordinates, even though they do not have the power to hire and fire. The report provides new data analysis showing that there are more than three million of these lower-level supervisors for more than 17 million low-wage workers - virtually all of the low-wage workforce. And another three million lower-level supervisors oversee millions of workers who do not earn low wages.The Vance decision puts all workers who are harassed by lower-level supervisors between a rock and a hard place. And it may be particularly damaging to workers in low-wage jobs who are very likely to report to a lower-level supervisor and especially vulnerable to harassment. These workers know that they may be putting their jobs on the line by reporting harassment. For those still willing to take the brave step of trying to hold their employers accountable despite the risk involved, they now stand a good chance of having their cases thrown out for failure to meet the definition of supervisor adopted in Vance. And their employers have fewer incentives to prevent and remedy harassment by lower-level supervisors, making harassment more likely to occur. The Center's report documents how the Vance decision is divorced from current workplace realities, with a particular focus on the low-wage workplace. The report offers a glimpse into the post-Vance future by chronicling cases of egregious harassment by lower-level supervisors in which women lost in court because the courts held that their harassers were coworkers, rather than supervisors. The report then highlights practical steps that Congress, states, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can take to address the mismatch between current law and workplace realities

Who is... Dr Frances McGregor? The International Association on Workplace Bullying and Harassment, December 2016 Newsletter.

In the International Association on Workplace Bullying and Harassment newsletter there is an article called ‘Who is...?’ In this column members of IAWBH are nominated to introduce themselves in a snowballing manner. After answering some questions about themselves, their work and developments in their country, the introduced member may pick up another member from the membership list for the ‘Who is...?’ column in the next newsletter. Pat Ferris from Canada nominated Dr Frances-Louise McGregor from the UK

Physical and Psychological Violence at the Workplace

[Excerpt] Key findings Workplace violence is a social phenomenon of a certain magnitude. Overall, approximately 6% of European workers report having experienced some form of workplace violence, either physical or psychological, in the past 12 months. Non-physical forms of workplace violence (such as verbal abuse, threats of physical violence and unwanted sexual attention) experienced in the past month are reported by 12% of workers. Overall, levels of reported psychological violence are higher than those of physical violence. Of the diverse types of psychological violence, bullying or general harassment is more prevalent than sexual harassment. There are variations in exposure to workplace bullying between European countries. On the whole, exposure to bullying or harassment is comparatively greater in France and the Benelux countries, while reported levels are lower in southern and eastern European countries. The country variations of reported exposure may reflect different levels of awareness of the issue and willingness to report, as well as of actual occurrence. Major differences in the incidence of workplace violence are apparent across sectors. Exposure to all forms of violence tends to be concentrated in sectors with above-average contact with the public. The level of physical and psychological violence is particularly high in the health and social work sectors as well as in public administration. Women, particularly younger women, appear to be more subject to sexual harassment in the workplace than men. Both physical and psychological violence have serious implications for the health and well-being of workers. Workers exposed to psychosocial risks report significantly higher levels of work-related ill-health than those who are not. The most common reported symptoms are stress, sleeping problems, fatigue and depression. Exposure to psychological violence is correlated with higher-than-average rates of absenteeism. Although psychological violence is, by its nature, more cumulative in its impact than physical violence, its negative health effects measured in terms of absenteeism appear to be as detrimental as physical workplace violence. Work environment factors contribute to the incidence of workplace violence. For example, high levels of work intensity (tight deadlines, working at very high speed), a high number of work pace constraints and working in frequent contact with customers, clients and other non-colleagues are associated with a higher likelihood of being bullied

Consequences of sexual harassment in sport for female athletes

Sexual harassment research was first undertaken in the workplace and educational settings. Research on sexual harassment in sport is scarce but has grown steadily since the mid-1980s. Even so, very little is known about the causes and/or characteristics and/or consequences of sexual harassment in sport settings. This article reports on the findings from interviews with 25 elite female athletes in Norway who indicated in a prior survey (N =572) that they had experienced sexual harassment from someone in sport. The consequences of the incidents of sexual harassment that were reported were mostly negative, but some also reported that their experiences of sexual harassment had had no consequences for them. “Thinking about the incidents”, a “destroyed relationship to the coach”, and “more negative view of men in general” were the most often negative consequences mentioned. In addition, a surprising number had chosen to move to a different sport or to drop out of elite sport altogether because of the harassment

Improving social corporate responsibility : the case of bullying behavior

This article highlights moral harassment at the workplace as a form of corruption in organizations. This form of corruption has cost organizations billions of dollars each year. A theoretical model is presented in this paper, which explains the main factors that affect bullying processes impact on organizations. Suggestions are provided in this paper, as tools to eliminate bullying within the workplace

The Organizational Model for Workplace Security

The definition of workplace violence is a “any act of harassment (including sexual harassment), intimidation, threat, rape or homicide that takes place at a victim’s place of employment.” When the statistics for workplace violence are looked at, it is easily understood why workplace security is rapidly becoming a problem for many organizations. The situation that provokes workplace violence does not necessarily have to start in the workplace or and the act of violence does not necessarily have to happen in the workplace for organizations to be concerned. Many organizations are just learning that violence can occur anywhere at anytime and they must be prepared to cope with the situation. This means they must take a look at their preparedness and decide what they need to do to not only increase preparedness but also to understand what procedures they do day to day that might affect a potentially violent situation. Organizations need to ask tough questions as to their hiring procedures, termination procedures, and security procedures. In today’s society, this increases from the aspect of global terrorism and how well are they prepared for the potential of a terrorist attack. Security in the workplace will continue to be a concern but by following specific procedures and processes the risk of a situation happening can be significantly reduced.workplace violence, workplace security, organizational security, domestic violence, spillover violence, workplace threats, violence prevention, employee violence