Sexual Harassment. Does it still exist in the workplace? You would think that by now with all of the training and exposure in the media, movies and literature that everyone would know what Sexual Harassment is and what will happen to them if they participate in it. However, this isn't the case. According to a survey done by Louis Harris and Associates, 31% of women whistleblower hotline and 16% of men have experienced Harassment at work. Are the perpetrators ignorant or do they just don't care? It's probably a little of both.
There are two legally defined definitions of Sexual Harassment - Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Work Environment harassment. Quid Pro Quo means "something for something". This is where a job benefit is directly related to submitting to the harassment - like a promotion or the threat of losing a job. Hostile Work Environment harassment means an employee is subjected to unwanted sexual contact, or unwanted sexual words or pictures. There is no threat of a job gain or loss with this type of harassment. This type of harassment usually needs to be of an ongoing nature and a single incident unless it is particularly outrageous usually does not constitute harassment.
You are probably familiar with the old analogy of someone using a carrot or a stick to induce another to do something. In the context of quid pro quo (this for that) sexual harassment, a harasser could use a "carrot" or a "stick" to threaten a victim. For example, if a harasser uses a "carrot", the harasser might say or imply to the victim that in exchange for a code of conduct sexual favor, the victim would get a raise or promotion. If, on the other hand, the harasser uses a "stick", the harasser might threaten the victim that if sexual favors were not provided, the victim would be fired or skipped over for promotion.In a recent case, the California Supreme Court seems to have treated sexual harassment as though harassers only use the "stick" as opposed to the "carrot" approach. In a case where the harasser essentially asked for sex in exchange for a benefit to the victim, the Supreme Court said there was no quid pro quo harm because the harasser did not follow through with the threat. This analysis would apply if the harasser used the "stick" approach, but in the case decided by the Supreme Court, the harasser had used the "carrot" approach. It is implicit in the "carrot" approach that there are no apparent consequences other than that the victim does not get the carrot in the absence of providing the sexual favor.
Click Here:- sexual harassment awareness training
Quid pro quo sexual harassment should rightfully include sexual harassment with the "carrot" approach as well as sexual harassment through the "stick" approach. Even though the harasser does not punish the victim in the "carrot" approach, a victim who is propositioned for sex at work in exchange for a benefit and refuses to provide sexual favors is precluded from the offered benefit. The Court's failure to recognize the "carrot" approach may leave the victim without legal remedy. Oddly, an unwilling victim who submits to providing sexual favors would be a legal victim of sexual harassment whether or not that victim received the promised benefits from the harasser.
Read More
Have Fun!
The Team at Educator Pages