Introduction
Sexual harassment remains one of the persistent issues that human resource managers (HRM). Any person can become a victim of sexual harassment, but the marginalized groups such as women, persons with disability, and individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI) are at an increased risk. For instance, a recent study including respondents from 135 countries found that one out of three women had undergone sexual harassment in the workplace compared to one in fourteen men (Pender, 2019). Sadly, the consequences of such acts can be devastating and long-lasting to the victims. According to Gregory (2018), it causes mental turmoil, depression, anxiety, loss of self-esteem, and may resign. Thus, the HRMs and organizational management team should enforce high ethics culture in which all employees are treated with dignity and respect. Although there are laws that prohibit sexual harassment in the workplace, it is the duty of the HRM to ensure that all people adhere to such policies.
Definition and Explanation of the Law
The labor laws of the United States prohibit all forms of sexual harassment in the workplace. A feminist activist by name Lin Farley was among the first people to try defining the phrase in 1975 (Hemel & Lund, 2018). Her definition of sexual harassment is any repeated or unwanted sexual looks, comments, suggestions, or physical contact that is offensive, objectionable, and causes discomfort in the workplace. In addition, any form of occupational discrimination based on one’s gender or sexual orientation is harassment.
There are several legal issues that concern sexual harassment and can be used as a basis for suing a person in a court of law. Back & Freeman (2018) state that the federal statute that prohibits workplace discrimination is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The law looks at the severity and pervasiveness which can create hostile work environments that are against the privileges, terms, and conditions of employment. In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can be used before the federal courts to defend a case of sexual harassment at the workplace (Hemel & Lund, 2018). Many organizations have made policies to control instances of sexual harassment in the workplace. Therefore, the laws are not explicit and subject to judicial and organizational interpretation.
Hypothetical Case on Sexual Harassment
Larsen, who has been working as an office assistant, was recently promoted to the position of administrator due to his hard work and academic attainment. However, after opening the employees’ suggestion box, there were many anonymous complaints about his behavior towards the female subordinates. For instance, one note stated that after giving directions, Larsen slammed the door in fury because Mary explained that the duty he allocated to her was not within her terms of employment. Moreover, he found some employees holding a meeting and rudely interrupted by loudly chastising and yelling at them. Since his promotion, employees, especially women, have been working for longer hours than their male counterparts because he says that their work input is low. Yet, there is no basis for his accusation because each person works according to their work requirements.
Furthermore, there are instances where Larsen has demonstrated some overtly sexual acts. For instance, he commented that one employee had “sexy boobs” and asked if he could give her a kiss. When the female employee went into his office for some official tasks, he asked that she should first serve him tea and accept a one-night date with him. The colleague declined, and since then, he has been acting rudely towards her. The HR held a meeting and several employees confirmed that the notes on the suggestion box were true. The people want action to be taken on Larsen so that he will be an example to other male clients.
Impact of the Sexual Harassment
The victim of sexual harassment is the most affected by sexual harassment, especially when there is no avenue for seeking justice on the issue. For instance, in the hypothetical case, the female employees that are subordinate to Larsen suffered by having the working hours extended. Moreover, the emotional turmoil that comes from gendered workplace discrimination can cause stress and burnout to employees (Gregory, 2018). The direct sexual advances and flirtations with one of the female employees are disrespectful and can cause fear and anxiety when around the perpetrator. Thus, it is important for the victims of sexual advances to expose the perpetrators so that action can be taken.
The reputation of a company is tainted when they condone any form of sexual harassment, and the issues land them in court. For example, in cases such as Spearman v. Ford Motor Co., 231 F.3d 1080, 1084 and Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), the organizations spent money and time attending court proceedings (Back & Freeman, 2018). Each time people read about the cases, the company gets a bad reputation leading to poor branding. In the current era of social media, such negative publicity can become viral and affect the organization. Moreover, the productivity of employees lowers when there is discrimination. Perpetrators may suffer individually when there is disciplinary action or from a bad reputation and further impact the company negatively.
Risk to the Company
As already noted, the company risks having a poor public image, low productivity, and losing money in court. For instance, the general formula for calculating the monetary cost of sexual harassment is VSH ¼ b average wage 2; 000 100; 000 (Hersch, 2018). The b stands for rate of sexual abuse while VSH is an acronym for the value of statistical harassment. The money is indirectly lost due to low productivity and can escalate if the court orders payment of a fine as a compensation to the victim.
In addition, the company can risk having a poor reputation which then affects branding. For instance, an organization can get a reputation for discriminating against women. Notably, the performance of such companies is generally low. The risk of having employees with low job efficacy after being victims interferes with the output. Therefore, it is vital for the companies to understand that sexual harassment destabilizes production and makes enterprises unsustainable.
Recommendation for Remedy
The HRM has the mandate to ensure that the workplace is safe for all the employees and that the people who get physical or psychological injuries heal. In the case of Larsen’s company, the HRM should start by publicly rebuking sexual harassment. The objective is to create an environment where victims can speak without fear of losing their job. According to Cassino & Besen (2019), cases of sexual harassment occur mostly when there are few work opportunities, such that the victims are afraid that speaking out may render them jobless. Therefore, when they have been assured that they have freedom of expression and will keep their employment, they start being open.
Next, it is vital for the HRM to gather all the facts of the case, both from the complaints and Larsen. Establishing if everything is truthful ensures that the decision that the company makes is justifiable. Moreover, it provides an opportunity for people to give their perspectives. The HRM can decide to collect data privately by getting an appointment with each staff in the office and listening to their side of the story. Noteworthy, it is only after the fact-finding process that the HRM can decide practical actions to prevent the occurrence of such actions in the future.
Upon establishing all the facts and if evidence point to Larsen being a perpetrator, it is important to engage other professionals. Particularly, a mental-health specialist such as a psychologist can be called to provide counseling to those who are most affected by the harassment. Attending to the mental wellness of the victims can help them regain a sense of self-worth and feel valuable to the company (Gregory, 2018). The HRM should call a professional arbitrator, mediator, or negotiator to help in settling the issue internally to protect the reputation of the company. Some possible disciplinary action for Larsen may include writing an apology to all the victims and stating that he will not repeat such action. The management can demote or fire him, especially if he has no remorse as a lesson to other people.
Recommendations to minimize Future Risks
The organization should organize a harassment-related training where all employees receive sensitization. Evidence indicates that training can affect attitude and knowledge on touch and speech that are considered inappropriate in the workplace (Hemel & Lund, 2018). In addition, most courts consider training a factor in deciding whether to hold a company liable for their employee’s conduct. For instance, in the case of Larsen, if the HRM had provided training, then even if the victims decided to sue, the company may distance itself from the case. Therefore, providing information serves a dual purpose of minimizing instances of sexual harassment while protecting the reputation of the organization.
The other recommendation is for the company to consider empowering staff from marginalized who have the necessary qualification. For instance, studies show that women are disproportionately likely to be victims compared to men (Pender, 2019). Yet, female employees occupy low positions in the workplace even when they have equal academic qualifications (Gregory, 2018). One way of improving the status of women, people with disabilities, LGBTQI, and other marginalized groups is to help the brake the glass ceiling. For example, if there is any woman who is qualified for the position of Larsen the HRM should offer her the promotion.
Having explicit policies on sexual harassment is another good way of minimizing instances of sexual harassment in the future. Particularly, the HRM and other managers should formulate a set of value-based laws and consequences for violation. All employees should then be given a copy at the point of recruitment into the organization. The rationale is to ensure that the individuals understand the rules and stance of the company on sexual harassment. Thus, when found in violation, the individuals will not have any excuse for ignorance.
In conclusion, instances of sexual harassment in the workplace are rampant in the contemporary world.
References
Back, C. J., & Freeman, W. C. (2018). Sexual Harassment and Title VII: Selected Legal Issues. Congressional Research Service, 1-45. Web.
Cassino, D., & Besen, Y. (2019). Race, threat and workplace sexual harassment: The dynamics of harassment in the United States, 1997–2016. Gender, Work & Organization, 26(9), 1221-1240. Web.
Gregory, R. F. (2018). Unwelcome and unlawful: Sexual harassment in the American workplace. Cornell University Press.
Hemel, D., & Lund, D. S. (2018). Sexual harassment and corporate law. Columbia Law Review, 118(6), 1583-1680. Web.
Hersch, J. (2018). Valuing the risk of workplace sexual harassment. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 57(2), 111-113. Web.
Pender, K. (2019). Us too? Bullying and sexual harassment in the legal profession. Web.
