NCJ Number
207894
Journal
Journal of Criminal Justice Volume: 32 Issue: 6 Dated: November/December 2004 Pages: 531-545
Date Published
November 2004
Length
15 pages
Annotation
After reviewing Federal court decisions pertinent to sexual harassment of employees in criminal justice agencies, this article discusses the policy implications of the case law and needed research.
Abstract
The article discusses the standards of agency liability for sexual harassment set in the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth (1998), Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998), and Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986). These cases established that an employer is responsible for the acts of its supervisors and that employers should act to prevent harassment; and employees must act to avoid or limit the harm from sexual harassment. In the years since 1998, when the Supreme Court first defined the employer liability standard, lower Federal courts have added meaning to this legal framework. This article discusses the lower court cases that have elaborated upon the employer's duty to use care to prevent and correct sexual harassment and the employee's duty to minimize damages and avoid harm. Specifically, employers must establish, disseminate, and enforce an anti-harassment policy and complaint procedures while taking other reasonable steps to prevent and correct harassment. Further, employers must create multiple reporting channels, stop harassment once it starts, have follow-up procedures in place, and ensure that no tangible job benefits are withdrawn from a harassed employee. Agency liability is mitigated or eliminated when it takes proper remedial action, when the harassed employee fails to cooperate in implementing appropriate remedial measures, when the victim makes an oral but not a written complaint or no complaint at all, and when the agency has no knowledge of the alleged harasser's prior harassing behavior. 7 notes and 49 references