About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

8 Preventive L. Rep. 3 (1989)
Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Costly in Production, Absenteeism, Turnover

handle is hein.journals/prevlr8 and id is 27 raw text is: Only one way to deal with it: Sexual harassment in the workplace costly in production, absenteeism, turnover By JAMES G. FRIERSON Professor of Management, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee he legal costs of sexual harassment in the workplace are growing. In 1987 a former personnel manager was awarded $1.4 million after being fired for vigorously investigating a charge of sexual harassment, while K-Mart settled a sexual harassment complaint for a record $3.2 million. In 1988 a North Carolina jury awarded $3.85 million to five women who had been sexually harassed by one supervisor. Legal costs of sexual harassment, while large for some companies, might be a minor cost to American business when compared to non-legal losses. A 1988 survey of 160 Fortune 500 companies, reported in the December 1988 issue of Working Woman magazine, showed an average company loss of $6.7 million per year in decreased produc- tivity, increased absenteeism and higher employee turnover caused by sexual harassment. Anecdotal evidence gathered by this author while prepar- ing a manual and CLE course on sexual harassment appears to show even larger losses relative to the gross incomes of smaller companies. Although many companies have adopted sexual harassment policies, a random survey by the author proved many to be inadequate. Some directly violate the principles of effective action as laid down in the only U.S. Supreme Court decision on sexual harassment, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 106 S. Ct. 2399 (1986). This article will discuss some aspects of the developing law of sexual harassment, give a procedure for handling sexual harassment complaints, and offer an example policy and complaint form that companies may use to handle sexual harassment complaints in-house, rather than in the courts. Sexual harassment in the workplace, as well as racial, national origin and religious harassment, can result in lawsuits against an employer for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), most state fair employment laws, and possible tort actions for assault, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emo- tional distress, negligent hiring, invasion of privacy, and other causes of action. One sexual harassment case even resulted in a judgment under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Orga- nizations) Act, Hunt v. Weatherbee, 30 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1469 (1986). Lawsuits against governmental employ- ers may also be based upon the Equal Protection Clause or the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983). Some of these Survey by the author shows many company policies are inadequate and may violate 'effective action.' causes of action allow awards of attorneys' fees and the imposition of punitive damages. Most court decisions, including the Mentor Savings Bank v. Vinson case cited above, give great weight to the EEOC Guideline on Sexual Harassment that declares sexual harassment to be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Guidelines define sexual harassment: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature (emphasis by the author) constitute sexual harassment when: (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment (or) (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreason- ably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment (emphasis by the author). Under this Guideline and court decisions, sexual harass- ment may be classified under the following categories: 1. Quid Pro Quo. Where an employer, manager or supervisor demands sexual favors in return for tangible job benefits such as a promotion, pay raise or continued employment. This is the traditional type of sexual harass- ment. Employers are automatically responsible for this type of harassment. 2. Sexual Favoritism. Where an employee loses a pay raise, promotion or other benefit due to discrimination in favor of a co-worker who is sexually involved with a manager or supervisor. This type of complaint has been the least successful cause of action in sexual harassment lawsuits. 3. Retaliatory Discharge. Where an employee is fired for Continued on next page June 1989/Preventive Law Reporter 3

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most