Sexual harassment, according to the EEOC, is any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment (Legal Definitions).

There are two types of sexual harassment: “quid pro quo” harassment (this for that) and hostile environment harassment.

Quid pro quo harassment occurs when submission to the harasser’s sexual advances is stated or implied condition of employme

There are some causes of sexual harassment. It is a power expressed sexually, usually not from sexual attraction. It may be causes by the desire to influence, affect, r control someone in the workplace. People may not realize that their jokes or behavior causes embarrassment and discomfort to others and may be perceived by others as harassment. Confusion about what kinds of behavior is and is not acceptable.

The question always comes about: Who is liable? In quid pro quo harassment, the harasser and the employer are always liable. In hostile environment, there are a few circumstances. The harasser is always liable. The employer is liable, if the owner or someone of high level management is involved. The employer is liable for harassment of a co-worker, supervisor, or outsider if they knew or had reason to know, and if failed to take prompt action. However, the employer is not liable for unknown harassment if the employer has a policy, a proper complaint procedure (University of California).

But what made the case so significant was that it clearly answered the question of how and whether gender and sexual orientation play in sexual harassment. The Court was undeterred by the fact that the harassers and harassed worker were all the same gender. It was also unswayed by the facts that the acts of harassment; in sexual content, was apparently not motivated sexual desire. The Court instead focused on the conduct and found it illegal sexual harassment. In the future, a person who is harassed because he or she is a gay men or a lesbian is very likely to be covered.

· Forced reassignment: sometimes a company responds to a complaint by transferring that employee elsewhere and leaving the harasser unpunished.

· Personal Loss of job: a worker is fired for going along with the sexual demands of a co-worker or supervisor.

Some topics in this essay:
Services Court, Legal Definitions, Personal Loss, Diversity Officer, HARASSMENT Sexual, Title VII, University California, Officer Knowing, sexual harassment, Rights Act, employer liable, hostile environment, quid pro, sexual advances, harassment workplace, Supreme Court’s, pro quo, harassment sexual, quid pro quo, individual’s performance creates, complaint filed, conduct sexual, creates intimidating hostile, intimidating hostile offensive, equity diversity officer,