NCJ Number
103092
Journal
Labor Law Journal Volume: 37 Issue: 10 Dated: (October 1986) Pages: 712-718
Date Published
1986
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This review updates the published literature on arbitrators', courts', and compliance agencies' decisions in sexual harassment cases.
Abstract
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex (1980) define sexual harassment as 'unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature' which are made a condition of employment decisions or adversely affect the victim's work performance or work environment. The EEOC determines the legality of a particular action from the facts in each case. Courts have addressed two different types of sexual harassment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: sexual favors as a condition for promotion and behavior which creates a sexually offensive work environment. Employer liability for sexual harassment has been generally found only when the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take effective action. A review of published arbitration awards reported since 1981 reveals approximately 24 decisions. These cases tended to rely upon standards used by the courts and compliance agencies. Most sexual harassment grievances brought to arbitration were initiated by employees discharged for sexual harassment rather than by alleged victims. Arbitrators have routinely upheld discharge as the appropriate remedy for sexual harassment, particularly when the employee had prior warning from the employer. There are apparently few victim-initiated cased brought to arbitration because the courts and compliance agencies provide for compensatory and often punitive damages plus attorneys' fees. 60 footnotes.