NCJ Number
138404
Journal
Trial Volume: 28 Issue: 5 Dated: (May 1992) Pages: 116-122
Date Published
1992
Length
7 pages
Annotation
The Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings have raised the public's awareness about the pervasiveness of sexual harassment in the workplace. It remains to be seen whether women will be positively affected by the hearings and come forward with their accusations or whether they will be more unwilling than ever to run the risk of seeking redress.
Abstract
Much of the confusion over what constitutes sexual harassment, whether it is illegal, and what alternatives a victim has stems from the fact that sexual harassment law is still in its infancy. The Equal Pay Act and Title VII are two laws that have made discrimination against women illegal. The early court cases based on these laws held that sexual harassment was not a form of discrimination. However, guidelines developed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission defined sexual harassment in three terms: quid pro quo, retaliation, and hostile environment. The major controversies in recent years have centered on whose viewpoint should be used to evaluate the offensiveness of a hostile environment, and how liable an employer should be for the hostile environment that existed prior to the incident of sexual harassment occurred. 30 notes