Putting an End to the Problem of Sexual Harassment.
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 employee of Columbia University claimed that her supervisor had sexually harassed her and that she had given in to his demands in order to keep her job. The supervisor had the authority to determine Karibian's work schedule and assignment, to grant promotions and raises and had authority to fire her as well. Karibian eventually filed a complaint with Columbia University and her supervisor was fired. The questions presented were whether Karibian had successfully established her claim of sexual harassment on two theories: (1) quid pro quo harassment; and (2) hostile working environment (Rosner, 2001, p. 43). This case represents an expansion in the area of an employer's liability for sexual harassment in the workplace in each of the two theories of recovery.