Two recent court decisions have dealt with the appropriate legal standard for determining reasonableness in hostile environment sexual harassment cases. This paper discusses the “reasonable woman” standard adopted by these courts and explores the notion that gender-based differences in definition of sexually harassing behaviors do, in fact, exist. And secondly, the paper investigates the issue of gender-based differences in the emotional and psychological effects of hostile environment harassment. Data from a major survey of sexual harassment in the federal workplace are analyzed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CollinsE.G.C.BlodgettT.B.1981. Sexual harassment: Some see it…some won't. Harvard Business Review, 59, 76–95.
2.
diTomasoN.1989. Sexuality in the workplace: Discrimination and harassment. In HearnJ.BurrellG.SheppardD.Tancred-SheriffP. (Eds.), Sexuality in the organization, 71–90. London:Sage Publications.
3.
Dunwoody-MillerV.GutekB.A.1985. Sexual harassment in the state workforce: Results of a survey.Sacramento, CA: Sexual harassment in employment project of the California commission on the status of women.
FarleyL.1978. Sexual shakedown: The sexual harassment of women on the job.New York: McGraw-Hill.
6.
GutekB.A.NakamuraC.Y.GahartM.HandschumacherI.RussellD.1980. Sexuality and the workplace. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1: 255–265.
7.
JensenI.GutekB.A.1982. Attributions and assignment of responsibility in sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 38: 121–136.
8.
JonesT.RemlandM.BrunerC.1987Effects of employment relationship, response of recipient and sex or rater on perceptions of sexual harassment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 65: 55–63.
9.
KonradA.M.GutekB.A.1986. Impact of work experiences on attitudes toward sexual harassment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 422–438.
10.
MacKinnonC.A.1978. Sexual harassment of working women.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (106 S.Ct. 2399, 1989).
12.
PowellG.N.1986. Effects of sex role identity and sex on definitions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 14, 9–19.
13.
ReillyT.CarpenterS.DullV.BartlettK.1982. The factorial survey: An approach to defining sexual harassment on campus. Journal of Social Issues, 38: 99–110.
14.
Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards (54 FEP Cases 83, 1988, DC MFla).
15.
TerpstraD.E.BakerD.1988. Outcomes of sexual harassment charges. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 185–194.
16.
TerpstraD.E.CookS.E.1985. Complainant characteristics and reported behaviors and consequences associated with formal sexual harassment charges. Personnel Psychology, 38, 559–574.
17.
ThackerR.A.FerrisG.R.1991. Understanding sexual harassment in the workplace: The influence of power and politics within the dyadic interaction of harasser and target. Human Resource Management Review, 1: 23–37.
18.
United States Merit Systems Protection Board.1988. Sexual harassment in the federal workplace.Washington, D.C.: Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies.
19.
Valentine-FrenchS.RadtkeH.L.1989. Attributions of responsibility for an incident of sexual harassment in a university setting. Sex Roles, 21, 545–555.
20.
Weber-BurdinE.RossiP.1982. Defining sexual harassment on campus: A replication and extension. Journal of Social Issues, 38: 33–54.
