The equal opportunity harasser, sexual harassment, gender-neutral words, and Ludwig Wittgenstein
| Author | Richard L Pate |
| Published date | 01 September 2017 |
| Date | 01 September 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1358229117722269 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The equal opportunity
harasser, sexual
harassment, gender-
neutral words, and
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Richard L Pate
Abstract
The equal opportunity harasser (EOH) in sex discrimination cases is an employer who
harasses both male and female employees alike. The EOH principle postulates that equal
harassmentof both genders equates to an absenceof disparate treatmentand therefore an
absence of the discriminatory conduct necessary to violate antidiscrimination laws. In
comparing the equality of the harassment, courts have generally focused on external indi-
catorsconsisting mainlyof perceptible manifestationsof the harassment,such as the number
of harassing episodes, the nature of the harassment, and most, notably, the words used
during such episodes. This note’s focus is on the words used during the harassment. Its
premise maintains that the external indicators analysis fails to consider implicit indicators,
that is, the societal hierarchy and norms which shape the persons’ sentiments long before
the employer employee relationship is formed. It is this less palpable background which
lends meaning to thewords used during the harassment. This note suggests that the most
viablestandard should hold the presumptionthat even apparentlygender-neutralwords are
virtually inexorably due to sex, accordingly, the equal EOH should be per se rejected.
Keywords
Equal opportunity harasser, discrimination, sexual harassment, gender-neutral words,
employment, employer, employee, Ludwig Wittgenstein
Management Department, College of Business, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT, USA
Corresponding author:
Richard L Pate, College of Business, Sacred Heart University, 5151 Park Avenue, Fairfield, CT
06825-1000, USA.
Email: pater@sacredheart.edu
International Journalof
Discrimination and theLaw
2017, Vol. 17(3) 180–194
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1358229117722269
journals.sagepub.com/home/jdi
To continue reading
Request your trial