6 - favored victims in four cases involving retaliation....

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Sexual harassment: Nasty, but rarer, The Economist, 12 November, 2011 Herman Cain’s alleged sexual harassment allegations have revived interest in assessing sexual harassment in the workplace. Three women have complained of unwanted advances from Cain and two of them received settlements to avoid court. Sexual harassment cases have risen in the past couple of decades, but it is unclear if harassment has risen. One opinion is that victims are more likely to report the harassment, but that actual instances of harassment have become less frequent. If it is true that victims are more likely to report harassment, it is likely due to the 1986 Supreme Court ruling that a company can be liable for any claim if there exists a “hostile environment” that tolerates harassment. Furthermore, in the last year the Supreme Court has
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: favored victims in four cases involving retaliation. This definitely helps reducing the fear of reporting inappropriate actions in the workplace. There is an argument to be made that these rulings may make false claims against an employer easier to pass in court or lead to innocents settling in mediation, but the bottom line is that the 1986 ruling has encouraged companies to include codes of conduct that adequately dissuade sexual harassment. Losing your job after one instance of harassment is not only acceptable, but imperative to a fair business environment, and not only because making unwanted sexual advances is probably intrinsically immoral. Between an employer and an employee, there is a power imbalance, and abusing that power along with the threat of retaliation is almost certainly immoral....
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online