When most people think of sexual harassment, they think of a male grabbing a female. However, sexual harassment can be something as insignificant as being called a foul name. It is anything that makes a male or female feel uncomfortable about his or her sexuality. According to the law, sexual harassment is anything from unwelcome advances and requests for sexual favors to verbal statements of a sexual nature. It also violates Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 in addition to Title IX of the Education Code. The sexual harassment policy that is in effect in all schools and work places is aimed at providing an academic environment free of harassment.

A recent decision from the Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals should raise concern among employers regarding claims by employees that their supervisors have sexually harassed them. An employer can be held liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor even if the employee suffers no actual economic loss, the employer had no knowledge of the misconduct and the employer provided a reasonable way for the employee to complain (Mezey, 2003, p. 86). In Karibian v. Columbia University, decided on January 25, 1994, a former em

An employer’s liability for sexual harassment claims is greater as a result of the Karibian case, both for quid pro quo harassment and for a hostile work environment. To avoid costs, employers must be diligent and take precautionary steps to prevent sexual harassment issues from progressing to litigation. Employers are in the best position to rid the workplace of discrimination and the persons who perpetuate it. They also are in the best position to resolve the wrongs resulting from sexual harassment and to pay for any damages. Employees and supervisors who discriminate and harass others should be more than adequately punished by the employer, the one ultimately responsible for the work environment.

Sexual harassment in employment situations is illegal under federal and state statutes prohibiting employment discrimination. It is also illegal under some city ordinances. In addition, a victim may also have a private civil claim for assault, and batter, infliction of emotional distress, or breach of contract. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, and other grounds. Sexual harassment is considered sex discrimination. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces title VII. The law applies to employers with 15 or more employees, employment agencies, and most unions (Francis, 2001, p. 102-105. The pertinent portion of Title VII that has been construed to prohibit sexual harassment states:

Hostile work environment harassment occurs when unwelcome sexual or other gender-based conduct interferes with an individuals work performances or creates an intimidating hostile or offensive work environment. Generally, this type of harassment requires a pattern of conduct, though a single serious incident such as a assault could be enough (Pruitt, 2001, p. 27). Prior to Karibian, an employer could be held liable for a hostile working environment created by a co-worker or supervisor under legal rules of “principal and agent” if the employer either provided no reasonable avenue for complaint of knew of the harassment and did nothing about it. According to Karibia, an employer is liable whenever a supervisory creates a hostile work environment by acting withi

Some topics in this essay:
Rights Act, Columbia University, According Karibia, Prior Karibian, Title VII, Sexual Harassment, Court Appeals, Title IX, sexual harassment, Commission EEOC, Education Code, title vii, quid pro quo, quid pro, hostile environment, pro quo, pro quo harassment, pruitt 2001, quo harassment, employer’s liability, economic loss, liability sexual, liability sexual harassment, actual economic loss, act 1964 prohibits,