When offering a full definiton of sexual harassment in the context of the workplace, there are few elements of any discussion that are cut and dry. There are several distinctions made bewteen the types of sexual harassment that are used and therefore it is critical for all employers and employees to understand what the different types of sexual harassment at work to gain an a better understanding of how to move forward.

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.