Juror perceptions of female-female sexual harassment: do sexual orientation and type of harassment matter?
| Date | 10 October 2016 |
| Published date | 10 October 2016 |
| Pages | 238-246 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-01-2016-0210 |
| Author | Marianna E. Carlucci,Frank D. Golom |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Aggression, conflict & peace,Sociology,Gender studies,Gender violence,Political sociology, policy & social change,Social conflicts,War/peace |
Juror perceptions of female-female sexual
harassment: do sexual orientation and
type of harassment matter?
Marianna E. Carlucci and Frank D. Golom
Marianna E. Carlucci is an
Assistant Professor and
Frank D. Golom is an Assistant
Professor of Applied
Psychology, both at the
Department of Psychology,
Loyola University Maryland,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to investigate how mock jurors perceive female-female sexual
harassment.
Design/methodology/approach –Participants read a case vignette depicting female-female workplace
sexual harassment where the sexual orientation of the harasser (lesbian vs heterosexual) and type of sexual
harassment (approach vs reject vs generalized) were randomly assigned across participants. Participants
were asked to make a liability determination for the case. They were also asked to rate the unwanted conduct
on several legally relevant dimensions (e.g. severity, pervasiveness, and unwelcomeness).
Findings –Results revealed that the sexual orientation of the harasser is an important factor used to make
legal decisions in same-sex sexual harassment cases. Participants found the same conduct to be more
severe, pervasive, unwelcome, and threatening when the harasser was lesbian than when she was
heterosexual. As hypothesized, female participants found more evidence of discrimination than male
participants.
Research limitations/implications –These findings illustrate biases mock jurors may hold when making
legal decisions in female-female sexual harassment cases.
Practical implications –Results are discussed in the context of decision-making models and possible
future directions and interventions are explored.
Originality/value –The findings extend the literature on female same-sex sexual harassment.
Keywords Prejudice, Sexual orientation, Discrimination, Juror decision-making, Legal decisions,
Same-sex sexual harassment
Paper type Research paper
Same-sex sexual harassment cases began to show up in American courts in the 1990s
(Wayne et al., 2001). Courts denied many of these claims citing that males could not sexually
harass males and fe males could not sexually haras s females (Foote and Goodman-De lahunty,
2005). For example, in Garcia v. Elf Atochem North America (1994), the court ruled that the
sexual harassment of a man by his ma le supervisor was not actionable through T itle VII, the act
that prohibits dis crimination based on race, color, r eligion, sex, or national origin, even though
the plaintiff compl ained of inappropr iate touching of his gen itals by a group of same -sex
co-workers. Even more telling is the 1996 decision in McWilliams v. Fairfax County Board of
Supervisors, where the court ruled that the sexual behavior perpetrated against the victim was
“utterly despicable”(p. 1196; plaintiff alleged numerous physical assaults in which a same-sex
co-worker placed his finger in victim’s mouth to simulate an oral sex act, a co-worker placed a
broomstick in plai ntiff’s anus, and a co- worker fondled him a t their place of empl oyment),
but still denied the se xual harassment cla im citing that both the “alleged harassers and the
victim are heterosexuals of the same-sex”(p. 1195). The issue was settled in 1998 when
Received 14 January 2016
Revised 28 January 2016
1 February 2016
Accepted 1 February 2016
PAGE238
j
JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACERESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2016, pp.238-246, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1759-6599 DOI 10.1108/JACPR-01-2016-0210
To continue reading
Request your trial