Take the Bull by the Horns: Structural Approach to Minimize Workplace Bullying for Women in American Higher Education.
| Author | Hollis, Leah P. |
| Position | Forum on Public Policy |
Review of the Literature
Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, workers of protected classes can pursue federal protection from workplace harassment based on race, color, age, gender, religion, or country of origin. American employers with 15 or more employees who fail to create an equitable work environment for all staff can face legal action from the individual facing discrimination. The legal definition of American sexual harassment is:
It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person's sex. Harassment can include "sexual harassment" or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature; however, it can include offensive remarks about a person's sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general ("Sexual Harassment" 2015).
The last recorded date of monetary settlements in relation to sexual harassment cases was 2011; an annual total of $52.3 million was awarded to complainants who sought financial damages for sexual discrimination. The 2011-year recorded the second highest annual total for settlements since 1997 ("Sexual Harassment Charges EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1997-FY 2011").
While this contemporary benchmark of damages points to the courts' application of the law since 1997, the court rulings in regard to sexual harassment and the protection of women in the workplace under Title VII had a tenuous evolution. At its inception, language pertaining to sex discrimination was added to the civil rights legislation at the last minute as a determinant to the racial discrimination bill that was also being considered. Despite language about gender discrimination being added to the bill in an effort to jeopardize the racial prohibition in the same bill, the civil rights law was passed (Crawford 1994).
In the early 1970s, courts ruled that a supervisor's unwanted sexual advances were personal preferences and not part of the job; therefore, sexual harassment did not fall under prohibition as outlined by Title VII Civil Rights Act. In short, personal attraction and its corresponding behavior were interpreted outside the governance of workplace discrimination. Other cases, such as Barnes v. Train 1974 (1) and Tomkins v. PSE&G 1977 (2) also separated supervisors' sexual advances from work policy, hence undercutting Title VII (Crawford 1994). Despite these legal setbacks, women continued to file sexual harassment cases, claiming that employers have a responsibility to curb unwanted sexual behavior in the workplace (Baker 2001, 408).
Despite the passage of the Civil Rights in 1964, federal courts did not rule on sexual harassment cases until the mid 1970s (Baker 2001). Six high profile cases, in which all the complainants lost their jobs, set the contemporary stage for equality through sexual discrimination legislation. Most significantly, Williams v. Saxbe, a 1976 (3) case that received national attention, confirmed that sexual harassment is a form of sexual discrimination and prohibited by Title VII legislation.
The majority of sexual discrimination cases in the 1970s were quid pro quo cases; this meant the employer sought an exchange of sexual favors for women's employment stability or status. However, the 1980 case of Brown v. City of Guthrie, (4) involved a civilian police dispatcher complaining about unwanted sexual comments, advances, and gestures. When the complainant reported the conditions to the chief of police, he remarked that she was "over reacting." The court ruling, however, stated that "behavior that created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment was an impermissible condition of employment" (Baker 2001, 411).
When the Supreme Court heard Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson in 1986 (5), the salient language about a "hostile work environment" provided the necessary momentum to protect women from unwanted gender-based harassment on the job (Crawford 1994). With the advent of language pertaining to a "hostile work environment," women claimed that a productive work environment was eroded by employers' sexual harassment. These cases claimed that unwanted sexual advances compromised the emotional well being of staff, created anxiety, and debilitated psychology (Baker 2001, 409).
The history of harassment against women in the workplace shows an increasingly sophisticated harasser; quid pro quo cases transformed into arguments about sex and pornography being a natural part of life, and therefore not prohibited by Title VII. As the courts advanced the "hostile environment" language, harassers increasingly abandoned overt sexual approaches for more covert harassment.
To file a sexual discrimination lawsuit, a complainant must establish a prima face case that the discriminatory behavior is based on sex/gender. Sexual or gender-based remarks or gestures typically need to be present to clearly define that the harassment is gender driven. However, a harasser or bully can be motivated by discriminatory bias and be savvy enough not to invoke overtly sexist comments. Consequently, women who have such supervisors might find themselves facing incivility on the job, without the overt signifiers noting sexism. Hence, harassment that is sanitized of sexist animus can be recast as bullying. McDonald and Dear (2008) conducted a quantitative analysis of 9000 discrimination and harassment cases reported by women; the results found that women are at a disadvantage in the workplace and possess diminished power compared to men.
In short, harassment and bullying are synonymous. For the purpose of this study, bullying means:
... Harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone's work tasks. This behavior occurs repeatedly and regularly over a period of about six months. With the escalating process, the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social acts (Einarsen et al. 2011).
Namie (2009) and Hollis (2012) reported that women are the disproportionate targets of workplace bullying; this disproportionate occurrence of women being targets appears to be a compelling factor, and potentially an extension of gender-based harassment. Workplace bullying distracts workers and destroys morale. Bullying, which does not specifically invoke sexist language, is what Yamada (2000) deems as status free harassment yet tends to affect women more than men.
With further consideration of women striving to gain executive and leadership positions, Kolman (2004, 153) posited that women "... in jobs not traditionally ascribed to their gender are perceived as threats in these occupations and are, therefore...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
