Public Shaming Of Workplace Harassers May Force Employers To Stop Protecting Them
Elizabeth C. Tippett, 11 Nov 17
       

Companies are likely taking notice as more women speak up about workplace harassment. AP Photo/Paul Sancya

Since the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke, a growing number of workplace harassment victims have decided to go public. Since this used to be pretty rare, it marks an important shift.

Along with the torrent of harassment revelations through the #MeToo Twitter hashtag, employees have gone public with harassment accusations against top figures in journalismstate politics, the restaurant industry and even the labor movement.

Many are wondering if the #MeToo movement will offer lasting benefits for workers affected by harassment. I think it could.

After working as a lawyer defending companies in employment lawsuits and now as a researcher, I gained some insight into how employers make disciplinary decisions after an internal investigation – and why they have a tendency to keep high-ranking harassers on the payroll.

The increased willingness of victims to go public with their accusations, however, may change the way companies feel about protecting a big time harasser.

Employers’ free hand

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits workplace harassment on the basis of sex, race, national origin and religion.

However, unlike other forms of discrimination, employers are not strictly liable for harassment. Instead, under a Supreme Court doctrine known as the Faragher defense, employers can sometimes escape liability by providing an avenue to complain and taking reasonable measures to prevent or mitigate further harm after an employee complains. The Faragher defense is especially applicable where the employee fails to use that avenue or delays in doing so.

The Faragher defense gives employers a lot of flexibility on handling the harasser after an investigation, as long as they do something, however superficial, to prevent future harassment. Sociologist Lauren Edelman calls this window-dressing “symbolic compliance.” So if a company considers a high-ranking harasser to be a valuable player, punishment may be perfunctory.

A 2000 racial harassment case from the United States Court of Appeals, Tutman v. WBBM-TV, exemplifies this problem. That case involved a CBS producer who told an African-American camera operator named Robert Tutman to “get the f— out of my office before I pop a cap in your ass,” used the n-word with reference to a movie title and “pranc[ed] around, derisively caricaturing African-Americans.”

Sign in to view full article

       
Singapore’s Ageing Population, a Challenge for Hospitals and Nurses
The increase in hospital admission and ensuing demands on intensive medical care will trigger the need for more hospital beds: ...
Epoch Newsroom
Mon, 2 Jan 17
Why Multilingualism is Good For Economic Growth
If your strategy is to trade only with people that speak English that’s going to be a poor strategy.
Gabrielle Hogan-Brun
Mon, 6 Feb 17
Organ Transplants and Scarcity, Innovation, and Politics
We all want to live a long time. And in vigorous good health while doing so.
David T. Jones
Mon, 20 Feb 17
Searching Deep and Dark: Building A Google for The Less Visible Parts of The Web
In today’s data-rich world, companies, governments and individuals want to analyze anything and everything they can get their hands on ...
Christian Mattmann
Wed, 11 Jan 17
Letter from Former Insider at Chinese Hospital Reports Detail About Organ Harvesting
A foreign patient receives a life-extending organ transplant in a Chinese hospital. Feeling grateful, he asks a hospital staff member ...
Epoch Times Staff
Mon, 2 Jan 17
An Epoch Times Survey
Join us today!
Get your November/December 2017 issue at Kinokuniya stores today!
BUCHERER
Sports Elements
Read about Forced Organ Harvesting