|
|
 |
DEFINING HARASSMENT
When is a company liable for a sexual harassment claim? April 30, 1998 |
|---|
Questions asked
in this forum:
Why should a company be liable for a harassment claim that was not reported? How can a business craft a harassment policy when the law remains murky? How do you define policies to meet standards a multi-cultural group will accept? Can large companies effectively monitor their workers? Is there a backlash against sexual harassment policies? Viewer comments. 
D. J. Beagire of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada writes: I feel a company has done its job if it has a clear harassment policy and makes this policy clearly understood by everyone. Do your panelists agree that workers have a responsibility to tell workers or bosses that the purported behaviour is unacceptable to them and file a complaint immediately if they feel that their actions will not change the situation? The responsibility cannot be just the companies. We all have the responsibility to take action against this behaviour.
Donata Ahern of Holland, NY writes:
I feel a company must: 1) conduct teaching sessions for all current employees when it adopts a sexual harassment policy, 2)regularly inform and remind current employees of the sexual harassment policy that does exist, 3) include training on the sexual harassment policy in new employee orientation.This training should include responsibilities of supervisors to be as aware as possible of what anyone under them may be doing against this policy, AND it should also include the responsibility of the employee to report any instance of sexual harassment he/she finds offensive. If the employee's immediate supervisor is the perpetrator, he/she should know to go to the next level over that person. In addition, most employers now have an EAP (Employment Assistant Program) in place, and the EAP counselor can also be consulted.
Sexual harassment, in my own experience, is widespread and often subtle, and not entirely practiced by men. Much of it may not be consciously intended as harassment by the perpetrator. It is only reasonable that the perpetrator also have the right of confrontation with a request to desist in the objectional behavior. This is especially true when sexual harassment is defined to include an uncomfortable work environment, without threat of dismissal or being passed over for promotion.
If employees do not also have responsibility in sexual harassment situations we foster the idea of dependence and helplessness - usually for women - which is also contrary to a compatible and favorable work environment. All should be equal, all should be able to work in comfort, but none should have special favoring treatment. This in itself, in my opinion, would encourage sexual discrimination.
Billy Walker of Phoenix, AZ writes:
Without a fair standard, sexual harassment can be a tool for gold diggers as much as the act of sexual harassment can be a detriment to the workplace.
Therefore, I believe any such feelings of sexual harassment by a male or female employee should be expressed to the perpetrator at the onset. Subsequent acts should be documented and formally filed as a complaint to the individual's immediate supervisor.
Having a fair standard should be established (hopefully by the Supreme Court in the pending decision) and made known in company employee handbooks so that a baseline can be established.
Linda Rosalik of Bamako, Mali writes:
My question for this piece is "why is it that people are so quick to blame the victim in a sexual harassment case?" The victim first has to document the behavior. Then the victim has to file a formal complaint with witnesses! Then the victim has to take it a step further for any action to be taken all this while continuing to work with this person! Why do people still blame the victim who was able to do all of these heroic acts simply to protect their rights? Why isn't the person doing the harassment on trial instead of the victim?Dr Robert McElhose of Pittsburgh, PA writes:
It's beyond time that we, as individuals, accept responsibility for our behavior as it 'INFLUENCES' others.Hiding behind the apron of our 'role models' does NOT forgive injustice to others. I am a licensed psychologist working within a health system and a university. Far be it from me to judge, nor is that my intent. I ask, are we raising children in fear or assertion? Both the victims and perpetrators of harassment AND violence need to know that they are responsible for their behavior!!! Hopefully, with some acceptance of that reality, they will seek help once aware of breaking cultural rules is clear to them. This does intend to rule out those who are TRULY emotionally disturbed. So in other words, there's no way a company should be responsible for the sexual harassment of an employee.
Plummer, William of Tucson AZ writes:
I don't believe that a company can be held liable for actions committed by its personnel that it is not cognizant of. This stands if it proven that the company was not reckless or displayed gross indifference in not being cognizant of a problem in the work environment that a "reasonable business" would have been so aware. If the company sets up a Sexual Harassment Program, educates all its employees about this program, and the management is sincere in enforcing this program, I believe the company has done all it can. At some point in our society the victim bears some responsibility in reporting the situation-or notifying the company...unless such reporting procedures are so difficult, cumbersome, or would create unnecessary and extreme emotional problems to the victim (beyond what the reasonable person would define as "unnecessary and extreme").Nora Shaughnessy of Saugus, MA writes:
The argument that "everyone in the office knows" is a good one, and it means that the company should be liable, but generally only in those cases.If the victim doesn't let on about her/his harassment, he/she can almost be said to be hiding it.
There could be excellent reasons for this. For one thing, policies, like chains, are as strong as their weakest link, and tend often to be overlooked for individuals with special positions in the company. If the victim is genuinely in fear for her/his job, hiding the harassment at least until the time is right may seem necessary and often is.
If "everyone knows," then all she/he needs is one or two office-mates to come forward and the case against the company is made.
And if her/his supervisor is so dreadfully unaware of what's going on in the office, then she/he should be retrained or fired.
Bob Hughes of Apache Junction, AZ writes:
I feel that some employee's have carried the sexual harassment bit a little to far. Some of the people involved like the attention but when they don't get their way they then want to claim harassment. Both male and female.I work for a very large company, and they have a very strict harassment policy, but I don't feel that top management can keep tract of all their middle management to assure that the policy is not being violated. I am just a low-level worker at this company but I am afforded every opportunity to file or voice a complaint at any time, as is every employee there.
If the person being harassed or intimidated does not file a complaint how can the company know about it?
Robert Ellis of Humboldt, AZ writes:
Does the victim of harassment expect the problem to resolve itself if she/he does not make the problem known to the employer? Does the victim anticipate the end to the problem by leaving the workplace that has become unendurable? Or does the "victim" see an opportunity to benefit financially without accepting any responsibility for taking steps to end the problem itself.It seems unacceptable to expect even the small employer with a handful of employees whose activity and attitude may be widely known to make efforts to change behavior unless someone makes it known that the behavior is objectionable. Not everyone finds a given behavior harassing.
Linda Johansen of Portland, Oregon writes:
As a small business owner - I believe that a employer should have a sexual harassment awareness policy, but I believe that it is impossible to monitor each employee and get "into their head" to find out how they "really" think!And I don't think I should be responsible for what they do that is "Out of my control." This is true especially in large companies. To hire someone is not to adopt them and become "responsible" for them.
I could go on - but I'm sure you get my point.
The bottom line on this.....is that as a small business owner (Machine shop of all men) I would not hire any women and put myself or my employees into "the line of fire."
I feel that this hurts women in the long run!
The PBS NewsHour is Funded in part by: Additional Foundation and Corporate Sponsors
Program
Support
From:
Copyright © 1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
