research on sexual harassment in the workplace

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Business Education
• Business Law
• Business Policy and Strategy
• Entrepreneurship
• Human Resource Management
• Information Systems
• International Business
• Negotiations and Bargaining
• Operations Management
• Organization Theory
• Organizational Behavior
• Problem Solving and Creativity
• Research Methods
• Social Issues
• Technology and Innovation Management
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Sexual harassment in the workplace.

• Rose L. Siuta Rose L. Siuta Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University
•  and  Mindy E. Bergman Mindy E. Bergman Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.191
• Published online: 25 June 2019

Business and management conceptualizations of sexual harassment have been informed by both legal and psychological definitions. From the psychological perspective, sexual harassment behaviors include harassment based on one’s gender, enacting unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion. The most recent psychological theories of sexual harassment acknowledge that it is a gendered experience motivated by the societal stratification of gender and not by sexual gratification.

Harassing behaviors negatively impact individual well-being. Well-documented workplace effects of sexual harassment include reduced job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and productivity, and increased job stress, turnover, withdrawal, and conflict. Sexual harassment negatively affects target’s psychological and physical well-being, including increases in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety symptoms, emotional exhaustion, headaches, sleep problems, gastric distress, and upper respiratory problems. All of these individual-level effects can result in financial decrements for the target and the organization.

Both individual and organizational factors predict sexual harassment. Women are more likely to experience sexual harassment, as well as minoritized persons, with women who embody more than one minority identity being the most likely to experience sexual harassment. This finding supports the interpretation of sexual harassment as motivated by reinforcing societal power hierarchies. Other individual factors such as sexual orientation, age, education level, and marital status are also related to experiencing sexual harassment. At the organizational level, organizational climate, job-gender context, and relative power between the harasser and the target predict sexual harassment. Organizational climates that are more tolerant of sexual harassment produce more sexual harassment. In addition, as masculinity of a work context increases, so does sexual harassment for women. Lastly, those with lower organizational power are more likely to experience sexual harassment, particularly by people with higher levels of power; however, contrapower harassment (harassment of individuals with higher organizational power by those with lower organizational power) can also occur.

Reporting harassment to organizational authorities has been theorized to lead to positive outcomes, but reporting rates are low. This may reflect findings that procedures for reporting are often unclear and that reporting often leads to worse outcomes for targets of harassment than their non-reporting peers.

The two most common approaches to measuring sexual harassment are direct query (explicitly ask about sexual harassment) or behavior experiences (ask respondents about how many sexually harassing behaviors they have experienced). A few considerations for the methodology used in these studies include inconsistency in conceptual or operational definitions of sexual harassment, the framing of a study, the retrospective nature of research asking about past experiences, and the sampling methodology used. A number of gaps remain in the documentation and understanding of sexual harassment phenomena, which intersect with some research practices and challenges. These include (a) the need to take into account factors other than incidence rates, such as perceived severity of experiences; (b) further examination of how multiple minority statuses and intersectional oppression affect harassment; (c) the importance of conducting research on harassment perpetrators; and (d) the examination of culturally informed topics related to sexual harassment, particularly outside Western countries.

• sexual harassment
• organizational climate
• job-gender context
• methodology

Introduction

Sexual harassment is a form of sex-based abuse that happens in the workplace (Berdahl, 2007a ; Fitzgerald, 1993 ; Gutek & Koss, 1993 ). It also happens in schools and other institutions, but because of the nature of this encyclopedia, this review focuses on the workplace. This article focuses primarily on the psychological, rather than the legal, definitions of sexual harassment because the psychological conceptualization of sexual harassment is the same across jurisdictions, time, court decisions, and legislation, but the legal definition is not. Additionally, this article focuses on the psychological conceptualization, because harm to employees and their organizations can occur even when harassing experiences do not rise to the level of a legal standard for harassment. In light of the recent rise of the #MeToo movement (a social media phenomenon whereby a surge of people used social media to acknowledge experiences with sexual harassment following claims levied against prominent figures in Hollywood and business), attention to sexual harassment has become even more urgent in organizational contexts. Results of a meta-analytic study of the workplace sexual harassment literature reveal that approximately 58% of women have experienced sexual harassment (Ilies, Hauserman, Schwochau, & Stibal, 2003 ). In the United States, the prevalence of workplace experiences of sexual harassment is 41% for women and 32% for men (Das, 2009 ). Similar rates have been found in Europe and Australia (AHRC, 2012 ; Latcheva, 2017 ), with 33% of women in Australia and 45–55% of women in Europe experiencing harassment at least once in their lives. Within Europe, women in Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden reported higher prevalence rates (71–81%) than those in Bulgaria, Poland, Portugal, and Romania (24–32%) (Latcheva, 2017 ). Incidence rates of sexual harassment are lower in Eastern nations like China (12.5%; Parish, Das, & Laumann, 2006 ) and Japan (9.5%; Chen et al., 2008 ) than those of Western nation counterparts. Meanwhile, one study on educational contexts in Ethiopia found similar prevalence rates to Western nations (Marsh et al., 2009 ). Thus, it is clear that sexual harassment is a worldwide and common experience.

What Is Sexual Harassment?

In the United States, sexual harassment law is informed by both legislation (e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ) and case law (e.g., Burlington v. Ellerth , 2000 ; Faragher v. Boca Raton , 2000 ; Meritor v. Vinson , 1979 ; Oncale v. Sundowner , 1998 ). As new legislation is enacted and court cases accumulate, the parameters change regarding how sexual harassment is defined, what evidence is necessary to support a charge of sexual harassment, and who can be held liable for substantiated claims. Sexual harassment law has long recognized that there are two distinct types or components to sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment. Quid pro quo harassment, which translates to “this for that,” is the notion that someone’s employment, promotions, compensation, or other terms and conditions of employment are dependent upon submitting to sexual requests or by providing sexual favors. Hostile environment harassment occurs when there is pervasive unwanted sexual attention, gendered and sexualized jokes, and comments, and other behaviors occurring in the organization; it’s as though harassment is “in the air.”

Other countries have different laws and guidance. For example, although each European Union (EU) member country has its own specific law regarding sexual harassment, EU member nations are guided by Directive 2006 /54/EC, which focuses on equal treatment of women and men in the workplace. This Directive states, “Harassment and sexual harassment are contrary to the principle of equal treatment between men and women and constitute discrimination on grounds of sex.” This Directive indicates that both harassment and sexual harassment are designed to intimidate, degrade, offend, or humiliate people, but differ in their content, whereby sexual harassment specifically has sexualized content, whereas harassment is treatment based on sex. Pakistan has two laws that prohibit sexual harassment: section 509 of the Pakistan Criminal Penal Code (a criminal law) and the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act of 2010 (a civil law; Jatoi, 2018 ). In New Zealand, harassment is also covered by two separate laws: the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the Human Rights Act 1993 ; these differ in the timelines for filing a complaint and how (Employment New Zealand, 2018 ). Japan’s legal precedent against sexual harassment began in 1992 following a successful suit whereby a publishing company and one of its employees were found responsible for crude remarks toward a woman, who was driven to quit her job from the negative experience (Huen, 2007 ; Weisman, 1992 ); statutes prohibiting sexual harassment appeared in Japan in 1997 (Huen, 2007 ). Thus, it is clear that there are numerous and varied laws and timelines regarding the prohibition of sexual harassment across the world.

The predominant psychological model of sexual harassment in the workplace was proposed by Fitzgerald, Hulin, and Drasgow ( 1995 ; Gelfand, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1995 ). They argued that sexual harassment is composed of a set of interrelated domains of behavior. These include gender harassment (later split into sexual hostility and sexist hostility; Fitzgerald, Magley, Drasgow, & Waldo, 1999 ; Hay & Elig, 1999 ), unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion. Sexist hostility refers to comments and behaviors that indicate that one sex (e.g., females) is worse than the other (e.g., males) in some way, such as being unsuited for some jobs, less intelligent, or humorless. Sexual hostility includes comments and behaviors that have a sexualized component and are demeaning to a group of people (e.g., women) or to an individual person; examples include comments about or attempts to draw a person into discussions about their personal sexual experiences, catcalls, sexual “jokes” or stories, ogling, exhibitionist or exposure behaviors, and sexual gestures. Unwanted sexual attention is behaviors that focus sexualized attention on a person, including unwanted touching (e.g., pats on the buttocks, massaging the shoulders, brushing up against someone), repeated requests for dates, and exposure to pornographic materials; unwanted sexual attention also includes rape and attempted rape. Sexual coercion is behaviors in which one person indicates that the terms and conditions of employment for another person are dependent complying with sexual requests, whether it is engaging in sexual behavior or submitting to sexualized comments and jokes. Fitzgerald et al.’s concepts map onto the legal concepts of harassment, with sexual coercion parallel to quid pro quo harassment and sexist hostility, sexual hostility, and unwanted sexual attention aligning with hostile environment harassment (Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995 ).

Berdahl ( 2007a ) proposed that sexual harassment be reframed and renamed as “sex-based harassment” to emphasize that sexual harassment is not about sexual relationships gone awry, but rather the sex-based social power hierarchies that exist within organizations and the broader societies in which they are embedded. This is critical because it explains (a) why there are differential patterns in who harasses whom (e.g., why men are more likely to harass women than vice versa), (b) why “uppity” (Berdahl, 2007b ; Berdahl & Moore, 2006 ) and other “unattractive” or unconventional women are harassed, and (c) why some men are harassed and which ones are most likely to be harassed (Berdahl, Magley, & Waldo, 1996 ; Fitzgerald & Cortina, 2017 ; Holland et al., 2016 ; Stockdale, Visio, & Batra, 1999 ). This perspective pushes back against the notion that sexual harassment is about sex and attraction and instead purports that it is about power and its preservation. Sexual harassment is a way to maintain power and status; it is a tool to suppress the advancement of women and others who might challenge the power, resources, and status that are held by the people at higher and the highest levels of the sex-based social hierarchy (Maass, Cadinu, Guarnieri, & Grasselli, 2003 ). In essence, lowering another person’s sex-based status is a mechanism for bolstering one’s own sex-based status. Berdahl ( 2007a ) notes that in the United States, the highest levels of the sex-based social hierarchy are occupied by cis, white, hetero, Christian, strong, smart, handsome, “manly” men. To the extent that people deviate from this standard and that they challenge the positions that are held by these men increases their likelihood of being harassed.

Fitzgerald and Cortina ( 2017 ), however, argue that sexual harassment is primarily a women’s issue because sexual harassment primarily occurs toward women. Additionally, they note that while Berdahl’s ( 2007a ) perspective is useful, men are harassed because the harasser perceives them to be “not man enough,” and the harassment that they receive often includes taunts and other behaviors that highlight that they are not “manly.”

It is clear from these recent developments that sexual harassment must be discussed within the context of the social stratification of gender that permits it. Early explanations of sexual harassment defined it as emerging from desire for sexual gratification (for reviews, see Berdahl, 2007a ; Lengnick-Hall, 1995 ; Welsh, 1999 ). Models of sexual harassment then focused on the normative permissiveness toward sexual harassment behaviors, the wide variety of behaviors—including non-sexual behaviors—that sexual harassment encompassed, and the individual and organizational fallout for sexual harassment in the workplace (Fitzgerald et al., 1995 ). Now theories of harassment have evolved to recognize that the gendered nature of sexual harassment is critical to our understanding of it (Berdahl, 2007a ; Fitzgerald & Cortina, 2017 ). In sum, views of sexual harassment have increasingly moved toward an analysis of its motivations as they relate to the social stratification of gender in a larger context and in the specific organizational context, as opposed to a focus on motivations stemming from sexual gratification.

Sexual Harassment as a Psychological Stressor

Fitzgerald et al. ( 1995 ) proposed an “integrated model of sexual harassment.” Their model integrated several psychological perspectives and literatures, including work from the fields of industrial-organizational psychology, clinical psychology, social psychology, violence, trauma, and law and psychology. Most notably, their work framed sexual harassment as a psychological stressor. Their work drew in particular on the transactional model of stress (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & deLongis, 1986 ; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984 ). Like other models of stress, the transactional model of stress indicates that stressors are events that tax an individual’s resources and require some action to restore the balance of resources the person had before the event. Further, the model recognizes that stressors can be psychosocial (i.e., occurring in interpersonal relationships and interactions). The transactional model of stress also proposes that the extent to which stressors affect people depends on their primary and secondary appraisals of the event. Primary appraisal is the assessment of how threatening the event is to the person’s well-being, identity, or other important life factor; secondary appraisal is the assessment of what coping resources a person has to remediate the situation. Although they are named “primary” and “secondary” appraisal, it is not the case that primary always and only precedes secondary appraisal. For example, the realization that a person lacks any coping resources (secondary appraisal) to deal with the situation could make it more threatening to the person (primary appraisal).

One reason why this particular model of stress was adopted over other models of stress appears to be that the concepts of primary and secondary appraisal helped explain why similar sex-based behaviors could elicit different responses from different people. For example, a salacious joke told to a group of people could be seen as threatening to Person A and non-threatening or even funny to Person B. Similarly, Person A could perceive a salacious joke told by Person C as threatening and a similar joke told by Person D as non-threatening. Primary and secondary appraisal help explain why this can occur. The context of these jokes, the people who tell them, and the people who hear them change the dynamics of power and subsequent threat. Fitzgerald et al. ( 1995 ) acknowledged this in their model by theorizing personal vulnerability factors that affect the relationship between sexual harassment and job-, psychological-, and health-related outcomes.

However, this perspective also bolstered the “whiner hypothesis” (Magley, Hulin, Fitzgerald, & DeNardo, 1999a ), which argued that women overreact to sex-based workplace experiences. That is, the inclusion of appraisal in Fitzgerald et al.’s ( 1995 ) model of sexual harassment indicates that there is a subjective component to understanding harassment, but the “whiner hypothesis” over-interprets that component to indicate that most harassment is subjective overreaction to harmless behavior. However, research shows that regardless of whether women label their experiences as harassment, they are harmed by harassing behaviors; the whiner hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked (Bergman & Henning, 2008 ; Ilies et al., 2003 ; Magley et al., 1999a ; McDonald, 2012 ; Welsh, 1999 ). Further, there is burgeoning evidence that personal vulnerability factors are as important or more important in identifying why some people are targeted for harassment compared to explaining why some people are more harmed by harassment (Bergman & Henning, 2008 ; Settles, Buchanan, & Colar, 2012 ).

One of the hallmarks of stressors is the negative effect that they have on individual well-being. The next section reports these findings.

Outcomes of Harassment

Research consistently shows that sexual harassment has a negative effect on target well-being, whether psychological, job related, or health related outcomes. In the following, several key effects are highlighted.

Job Outcomes

Sexual harassment negatively affects targets’ job-related well-being. The negative effect of sexual harassment on job satisfaction is well documented in the United States and around the world (Fitzgerald et al., 1997 ; Hutagalung, & Ishak, 2012 ; Malik, Malik, Qureshi, & Atta, 2014 ; Merkin & Shah, 2014 ; Nielsen, Bjørkelo, Notelaers, & Einarsen, 2010 ; Sojo, Wood, & Genat, 2016 ; Wasti, Bergman, Glomb, & Drasgow, 2000 ; Willness, Steel, & Lee, 2007 ). Through meta-analysis, Willness et al. ( 2007 ) demonstrated that sexual harassment negatively affects all forms of workplace satisfaction, with slightly stronger negative effects on satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of work (i.e., co-worker and supervisor satisfaction) compared to satisfaction with the work itself. Beyond job satisfaction, sexual harassment has effects on a number of work-related outcomes, including job stress (Cortina, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 2002 ; Lim & Cortina, 2005 ) and organizational commitment (Willness et al., 2007 ).

Sexual harassment has also been negatively linked to a variety of aspects of job performance and turnover (Barling, Rogers, & Kelloway, 2001 ; Liu, Kwan, & Chiu, 2014 ; Magley, Waldo, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 1999b ; Raver & Gelfand, 2005 ; Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2005 ). Because both job satisfaction and organizational commitment predict turnover (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000 ; Mathieu, Fabi, Lacoursière, & Raymond, 2016 ; Meyer, Stanley, Hercovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002 ; Riketta, 2002 ) and both are negatively impacted by sexual harassment, this suggests that experiencing sexual harassment will predict turnover as well. Furthermore, people who are sexually harassed are more likely to turn over than people who are not (Sims, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 2005 ). Because harassment can prompt turnover, it can increase financial strain for targets and also damage their ongoing career prospects (McLaughlin, Uggen, & Blackstone, 2017 ). In addition, Willness et al. ( 2007 ) showed a positive relationship between sexual harassment and organizational withdrawal, including avoiding work, missing work, and neglecting to complete job tasks. Gruber ( 2003 ) found that sexual harassment is more likely to result in its targets avoiding work than any other type of outcome, including actual turnover (Willness et al., 2007 ).

The effects of sexual harassment are not limited to just the target of the harassment, but can also spread to other members and areas within the organization. These effects are exemplified by decreased job satisfaction, increased conflict within teams, and increased turnover and withdrawal behaviors that show that when there is an increase in sexual harassment, there is also a decrease in workgroup productivity (Willness et al., 2007 ). Parker and Griffin ( 2002 ) demonstrated that sexual harassment is positively related to conflict within teams and impairment of relationships between team members, which translates to a decrease in team financial performance. In addition to effects of one person’s harassment experiences on team functioning, knowledge of harassment and harassment climate also negatively affect employees and workplaces. Witnessing sexual harassment negatively affects the job satisfaction of the bystander (Dionisi & Barling, 2018 ; Glomb et al., 1997 ; Richman-Hirsch & Glomb, 2002 ). Further, organizational climates that are tolerant of sexual harassment are negatively linked to job satisfaction (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, & Magley, 1999 ).

Health Outcomes

Experiencing sexual harassment has also been linked to a variety of negative health outcomes for the target—both mental and physical (Fitzgerald et al., 1997 ; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012 ; Sojo et al., 2016 ; Willness et al., 2007 ). Further, Dionisi, Barling, and Dupré ( 2012 ) found that the negative effect on psychological well-being is stronger for threatened and real physical contact forms of sexual harassment than for other types of workplace mistreatment. For women targets, symptoms of PTSD are positively correlated and general psychological well-being is negatively correlated with sexual harassment (Schneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald, 1997 ). Willness et al.’s ( 2007 ) meta-analysis demonstrated that symptoms of PTSD were positively correlated with experiences of sexual harassment. Symptoms of depression and anxiety are also positively correlated with exposure to sexual harassment (Ho, Dinh, Bellefontaine, & Irving, 2012 ; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012 ). When observing medical diagnoses received by plaintiffs in harassment trials, major depressive disorder and PTSD were the most common mental health symptoms reported (Fitzgerald et al., 1999 ).

Sexual harassment is also linked to alcohol abuse and the risk of eating disorders (Harned & Fitzgerald, 2002 ; Rospenda, Fujshiro, Shannon, & Richman, 2008 ). Schneider, Tomaka, and Palacios ( 2001 ) found that cardiovascular activity increased even after mild experiences of gender harassment. Additionally, there is a positive relationship between experiencing sexual harassment and various psychosomatic symptoms. These include an increase in the experience of headaches, sleep problems, gastric distress, and upper respiratory infections (Barling et al., 1996 ). In addition to physical health problems, those who experience sexual harassment are also more likely to experience emotional exhaustion (de Haas, Timmerman, & Höing, 2009 ). Taken in conjunction, these findings show that sexual harassment has effects on multiple aspects of a target’s life, including job effects, psychological effects, and physical health effects.

Predictors of Harassment

In this section, individual and organizational predictors of sexual harassment are reviewed. These findings are important because they highlight both the individual characteristics that make one more likely to be targeted with sexual harassment, as well as the organizational characteristics that can leave individuals more vulnerable to these experiences. Organizations would benefit from understanding the intersections of individual- and organizational-level predictors to prevent sexual harassment and minimize the harmful effects on targets and co-workers. This would allow more proactive attempts to prevent harassment rather than reactively respond via legal compliance routes.

Target Characteristics Associated With Sexual Harassment

One of the enduring findings in the sexual harassment literature is that women are more likely to experience sexual harassment than men (Foster & Fullagar, 2018 ; Ilies et al., 2003 ; U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1981 , 1988 , 1994 ). This is consistent with theories of power in sexual harassment (e.g., Berdahl, 2007a ) as well as theories of intersectional oppression (e.g., Crenshaw, 1989 ). Additionally, intersectionality theory suggests that occupying more than one minoritized 1 category can have a multiplicative effect on sexual harassment (Crenshaw, 1989 ). Generally, intersectionality theories examine how demographic identity markers are inextricably linked because systems of oppression (e.g., racism, sexism) are inextricably linked as ways to uphold the society’s hegemonic power structure. The consequence for sexual harassment research is that a target’s risk for and rates of sexual harassment are likely to increase as the number of minoritized identities increase. One example of this effect is evident in research showing that racially/ethnically minoritized women experience more harassment than white women, white men, or racially/ethnically minoritized men (Berdahl & Moore, 2006 ). Racially and ethnically minoritized women are also more likely to be employed in positions that are lower status and with less organizational power (Bayard, Hellerstein, Neumark, & Troske, 2003 ; Maume, 1999 ), which may leave them vulnerable to the effects of power differences on sexual harassment discussed in the following section. Similarly, women are particularly at risk for experiencing sexual harassment when they come from backgrounds with low sociocultural power (Harned et al., 2002 ). In their theory, Fitzgerald et al. ( 1995 ) highlighted low economic power as a likely strong predictor of sexual harassment and its negative effects (i.e., as a moderator of the sexual harassment–outcome relationship) because people with low economic power have little opportunity to leave their current job for another.

Race and ethnicity also predict experiences of sexual harassment. Bergman and Drasgow ( 2003 ) found that among U.S. military women, the frequency of experiences of sexual harassment differed depending on race, with Native American women reporting the most harassment, Hispanic and black women reporting the next most frequent amount of harassment, followed by Asian women, and with white women indicating the fewest instances of harassment. Similarly, among men in the U.S. military, black men report more frequent experiences of sexual harassment than white men (Settles et al., 2012 ). Additionally, racial/ethnic minoritized persons experience an additional type of sexual harassment, racialized sexual harassment, that reflects both their sex status and their race status (Buchanan, 2005 ; Buchanan & Ormerod, 2002 ; Welsh, Carr, MacQuarrie, & Huntley, 2006 ).

LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) persons are also likely to experience sexual harassment, and in particular to experience a specific form of sexual harassment, sexual orientation harassment, whereby unwanted behaviors are exhibited toward an individual because of their perceived sexual orientation (Ryan & Wessel, 2012 ). This harassment can take the form of direct unwanted expressions or actions, or can come from ambient expressions of hostility toward sexual minorities in the workplace climate. Because sexual orientation can remain a hidden identity in comparison to more outwardly visible determinants of minoritized status, such as race or gender, these individuals may be especially prone to experiencing sexual orientation harassment in its more ambient form. Like other demographic risk factors, sexual orientation–based sexual harassment reflects threats to the sex-based societal power structure (Berdahl, 2007a ). Similarly, men experience a type of sexual harassment, “not man enough” harassment, which is deployed when men violate gender norms (Berdahl et al., 1996 ; Funk & Werhun, 2011 ); this idea has been expanded into “gender policing harassment” in order to encapsulate women’s experiences and an LGBTQ person’s harassment experiences based on perceived violations of gender norms (Konik & Cortina, 2008 ). As a summary statement, people who violate gender norms are more likely to experience sexual harassment (Berdahl, 2007a , 2007b ; Konik & Cortina, 2008 ).

Age, education level, and marital status have also been linked to sexual harassment. Younger people are more likely to experience sexual harassment than their older counterparts (Fain & Anderton, 1987 ). Those who are younger are also more likely to occupy lower positions in organizations and hold less sociocultural power when compared to their older counterparts. Additionally, those who have attained a lower education level are also less likely to hold higher positions in organizations. Individuals with lower education levels are similarly more likely to experience sexual harassment (Fain & Anderton, 1987 ). Lastly, those who are married are less vulnerable to sexual harassment than their single counterparts (Fain & Anderton, 1987 ). Each of these factors might be a proxy for the economic dependence on their current job (Fitzgerald et al., 1995 ).

Organizational-Level Predictors of Harassment

At the organizational level, three major facilitating conditions of sexual harassment have been identified: organizational climate, job-gender context, and relative power between the harasser and the target. Organizational climate is the extent to which the workplace tolerates sexual harassment (Hulin, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1996 ). Job-gender context reflects the gendered nature of a particular job, including the sex ratios within the workgroup, the sex of the supervisor, and the stereotypical gender associated with a job (e.g., surgeon vs. nurse; Gutek, 1985 ). Relative power is the extent to which one person occupies more powerful positions than the other.

There are numerous climates in organizations, corresponding to sets of expectations about particular components of organizational life; because of this, specific instantiations of climate are “climates for” components of the organization (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Muhammad, 2013 ). Organizational climate is generally conceptualized as the normative expectations of the contingencies regarding behaviors—what is rewarded and supported, or condemned and sanctioned (Ostroff et al., 2013 ). Organizational climate relevant to sexual harassment was originally conceptualized and operationalized as organizational tolerance for sexual harassment (Hulin et al., 1996 ), but often is referred to as “organizational climate” or “climate toward harassment.” Regardless of the particular label or measure used, organizational climate in the context of sexual harassment reflects the extent to which sexual harassment is rewarded, supported, or sanctioned in the organization. It reflects the normative expectations of whether sexual harassment is tolerated.

The second major organizational predictor of sexual harassment is job-gendered context (Gutek, 1985 ). This is the extent to which a job is gendered as masculine or feminine. Gender is an integral part of defining power structures within organizations, which includes divisions of organizational power along gender lines, images which reinforce gender stereotypes, male dominance in social interactions, gendered individual identities, and the underlying creation of gendered organizational structures (Acker, 1990 ). Job-gender context includes both the local context and the occupational history and stereotypes. Job-gendered context is often operationalized with assessments of (a) the sex of the supervisor for the position, (b) the local sex ratio of the people in the position and the co-workers attached to it, and (c) the gendered stereotype associated with the job (Fitzgerald et al., 1997 ). Results indicate that women in more masculine jobs (i.e., those that have a man as a supervisor, have more men than women as co-workers, and/or where the job is more associated with men than with women) are more likely to experience sexual harassment (Bergman et al., 2002 ; Fitzgerald et al., 1997 ). This is consistent with Berdahl’s ( 2007a , 2007b ) argument that women who are perceived to be interlopers in male spaces are more likely to be harassed.

The organizational power difference between the target and the harasser is also a factor in experiences of sexual harassment. Not only is occupying positions of lower organizational power associated with a greater risk of sexual harassment for women than for those who occupy positions of higher organizational power (Harned et al., 2002 ), but the power difference between the target and harasser matters as well (Bergman et al., 2002 ). However, it should be noted that relative organizational power is only one marker of the power differential between harasser and target. Contrapower harassment also occurs, such that persons with higher organizational power but lower social power on other aspects experience harassment from persons with lower organizational power but higher social power (Rospenda, Richman, & Nawyn, 1998 ).

Reporting Sexual Harassment

There is considerable interest in the formal reporting of sexual harassment to organizational authorities because reporting is theorized to have significant benefit to both the target of harassment and to the broader organization. Although people indicate in vignette studies that they are likely to confront or report their harassers (see Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001 , for a review), studies of people in real (rather than “thought experiment,” vignette, or “paper people” studies of harassing situations) indicate otherwise (Bergman at al., 2002 ; Brooks & Perot, 1991 ; Culbertson & Rosenfeld, 1994 ; Firestone & Harris, 2003 ). Note that people can report experiencing sexually harassing behavior even if they do not label it as sexual harassment (Bergman et al., 2002 ).

The low rates of reporting are surprising when considering the theorized positive outcomes of reporting harassment (Bergman et al., 2002 ). Following a report, the harassing behavior should end, which should result in some—although not necessarily full—recovery from the stress resulting from the harassment (Munson, Hulin, & Drasgow, 2000 ). Additionally, reports should provide the opportunity for organizations to identify problematic employees and either sanction them or remove them from the organization; it should also buffer the organization from liability because the organization should respond appropriately (Bergman et al., 2002 ). However, research indicates that despite the putative goals of reporting, people do not benefit from the reporting experience compared to their non-reporting peers; oftentimes, reporters are actually worse off than if they had never reported (Adams-Roy & Barling, 1998 ; Bergman et al., 2002 ; Brooks & Perot, 1991 ; Firestone & Harris, 2003 ; Fitzgerald, Swan, & Fischer, 1995 ; Gruber & Smith, 1995 ; Hotelling, 1991 ; Malamut & Offermann, 2001 ).

The deficits in well-being from reporting are likely due to unclear procedures and negative consequences associated with reporting sexual harassment. Across a number of studies, targets of sexual harassment claimed that the reasons they chose not to report the harassment were due to concerns regarding the definition of harassment, the work environment not being conducive to reporting, questions of what would happen to their job status, and fear of other organizational and personal consequences (Adams-Roy & Barling, 1998 ; Bergman et al., 2002 ; Brooks & Perot, 1991 ; Fitzgerald et al., 1995 ; Gruber & Smith, 1995 ; Hesson-McInnis & Fitzgerald, 1997 ; Hotelling, 1991 ; Malamut & Offermann, 2001 ).

Organizational factors also influence sexual harassment reporting. Notably, organizational climate influences reporting, such that if people perceive others to be accepting of harassment, then they are less likely to report (Bergman et al., 2002 ; Halbesleben, 2009 ; Offermann & Malamut, 2002 ). Additionally, leaders’ views of harassment play a role, such that leaders who are anti-harassment are more likely to have subordinates who report harassment (Offermann & Malamut, 2002 ). Organizational factors appear to be so important that Bergman et al. ( 2002 ) noted that a climate intolerant of harassment is essential because it (a) reduces the harassment in the organization, (b) increases the likelihood of reporting when it does occur, and (c) increases the likelihood that organizations will respond appropriately to those reports.

Organizational Responses to Reporting

When targets of harassment report their experiences to the organization, the organization can make any number of responses (Knapp, Faley, Ekeberg, & DuBois, 1997 ). First is investigation; organizations can intake the report and deploy human resources representatives to investigate to determine whether organizational rules have been broken (Pustolka, 2015 ; Trotter & Zacur, 2012 ). There has been surprisingly little research on sexual harassment investigations. One recent study, however, demonstrates that organizational tolerance for sexual harassment suppresses both learning of sexual harassment investigation skills and the motivation to learn these skills (Goldberg, Perry, & Rawski, 2018 ).

Note, however, that organizations are not required to investigate sexual harassment allegations. It is possible that their policies do not require it (Pustolka, 2015 ). Additionally, the process is a human process, prone to the cognitive errors and biases of human decision makers. Thus, a different response is minimization: organizational representatives could encourage the reporter to drop the complaint or could respond that the complaint is not serious enough to warrant an investigation (Bergman et al., 2002 ). This minimization could happen at the time of the report, making an investigation unlikely to occur, or it could happen during (e.g., through investigator behavior) or after the investigation. In the latter case, it is possible that the report is unsubstantiated, so the reporter has the experience that the complaint was minimized when in actuality the complaint did not meet the standards for concern within the organization. Organizations that are more tolerant of sexual harassment are more likely to use minimization (Bergman et al., 2002 ). Additionally, as the perpetrators’ rank in the organization increases, the use of minimization also increases (Bergman et al., 2002 ).

Organizations could also retaliate against the reporter (Bergman et al., 2002 ). This could again happen at the time of the complaint or during or following an investigation. Retaliation can occur both formally (e.g., reassignment to a different unit in the organization) or informally (e.g., hostile treatment from co-workers; Bergman et al., 2002 ). Unsurprisingly, like the finding for minimization, retaliation is more common when organizations are more tolerant of sexual harassment and when the perpetrator’s rank is higher (Bergman et al., 2002 ).

Organizations can also make positive responses to the report, notably remediation (Bergman et al., 2002 ). Organizational remedies are actions taken against the perpetrator, including informal discussions about behavior, formal notes in employment files, reassignment to other work units or positions, and terminating the employment relationship. Remedies are more common when organizations are less tolerant of sexual harassment and when the perpetrator is lower in organizational rank (Bergman et al., 2002 ). Despite the positive response of organizational remedies, it has less effect on procedural satisfaction with the reporting process than do either retaliation or minimization (Bergman et al., 2002 ). It seems, then, that it is as important—if not more so—to reduce negative responses to sexual harassment reports than to increase positive responses.

At best, reporting sexual harassment does not make things worse for the reporter, but unfortunately it often does; there is no evidence to indicate that reporting actually improves well-being or job attitudes (Adams-Roy & Barling, 1998 ; Bell, Street, & Stafford, 2014 ; Bergman et al., 2002 ; Brooks & Perot, 1991 ; Firestone & Harris, 2003 ; Hesson-McInnis & Fitzgerald, 1997 ; Malamut & Offermann, 2001 ). Following a report of sexual harassment, people are affected by whether the harassment has been adequately addressed. For instance, if it is perceived that the harassment has been addressed, targets of sexual harassment are likely to have fewer symptoms of PTSD and depression and better well-being and post-harassment functioning (Bell et al., 2014 ). Therefore, it is not simply reporting harassment that can improve well-being for the target of sexual harassment, but the target’s perceptions and satisfaction with the reporting process (Bergman et al., 2002 ).

Sexual harassment research spans the methodological spectrum, including qualitative (Good & Cooper, 2014 ), experimental (Bursik, 1992 ; Burgess & Borgida, 1997 ; Pryor, 1987 ), historical (Segrave, 1994 ), legal (Conte, 2010 ), and quantitative methods. Because this review focuses primarily on the psychological aspects of sexual harassment in the workplace, quantitative methods common to psychological research, particularly surveys, predominate. The use of quantitative survey methods leads to queries about two key issues: measurement of sexual harassment and survey construction. Although psychological research in general and the study of sexual harassment in particular use experiments, within the sexual harassment literature these experiments are nearly uniformly vignette studies or “paper people” and do not align well with the lived experiences of sexual harassment targets. (For an exception, see Pryor, 1987 , for an experiment in which sexually harassing behaviors were induced in a laboratory setting.)

Measurement of Sexual Harassment

There are two primary ways of measuring sexual harassment (Culbertson & Rosenfeld, 1993 ): direct query and behavioral experiences. In the direct query method, people are only counted as having experienced sexual harassment if they respond affirmatively to an item such as “Have you been sexually harassed at work?” With the behavioral experiences method, participants indicate which of a list of behaviors they have experienced; they are counted as having been sexually harassed through their responses (i.e., greater than zero). The behavioral experience methods count a person as harassed even if the person does not label it as such (i.e., says “no” to a direct query item).

Considering the differences in methods, it is not surprising that the behavioral experiences approach results in counting more people as harassed than does the direct query method (Ilies et al., 2003 ). Interestingly, both the direct query and behavioral experiences approach result in similar relationships between sexual harassment and a variety of outcomes (Sojo et al., 2016 ). Within the behavioral experiences approach, the predominant measure of sexual harassment is the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (Fitzgerald et al., 1995 ; Fitzgerald et al., 1999 ). However, although it is the most commonly used behavioral experiences measure, there seems to be little substantive difference between using the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire and other behavioral measures in the ability to predict outcomes (Willness et al., 2007 ; Sojo et al., 2016 ).

In commentaries on the sexual harassment literature, theorists point out that there is often inconsistency in the definitions of sexual harassment used across studies and in the behaviors included in the specific operationalizations of behavioral experiences measures (Arvey & Cavanaugh, 1995 ; Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993 ; Lengnick-Hall, 1995 ; Nye, Brummel, & Drasgow, 2014 ; Timmerman & Bajema, 1999 ). These definitional differences likely produce some discrepancies in the sexual harassment literature, particularly regarding incidence and prevalence of sexual harassment experiences (Ilies et al., 2003 ). Incidence and prevalence rates are typically lower in studies using the direct query method as opposed to those using behavioral experiences methods (Ilies et al., 2003 ; Timmerman & Bajema, 1999 ).

Unsurprisingly, there is considerable debate regarding whether direct query or behavioral experiences methods provide the “true score” rate of sexual harassment. On the one hand, the direct query method asks people to indicate exactly what the researchers want to know: Has sexual harassment occurred? On the other hand, the direct query method is problematic because people often do not know the definition of sexual harassment, or they recognize that their experiences do not meet legal standards of harassment even though they are distressing (Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993 ). Thus, despite the apparent simplicity of the direct query method, there is considerable room for interpretation (Lengnick-Hall, 1995 ). However, there are still opportunities for interpretation in behavioral experiences methods, such as when an item asks whether a person has heard “suggestive” or “offensive” jokes and stories (Ilies et al., 2003 ). This is considered by some to be a strength of the behavioral experiences approach, because it encourages respondents to ignore jokes and stories that were not offensive (Fitzgerald et al., 1995 ; Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993 ). On the whole, it seems that the better practice is to use a well-validated behavioral experiences method and, when possible, to also include a direct query.

Beyond the measurement of the frequency of sexual harassment experiences, it is also important to investigate other aspects of sexually harassing behaviors. Arvey and Cavanaugh ( 1995 ), for example, suggested that measures of behavior severity should be taken into account. Consistent with this idea, Berdahl (Berdahl, 2007b ; Berdahl & Moore, 2006 ) incorporated a multiplier when using the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire that measured how bothersome each specific behavior (i.e., item) was, which was then used to create a weighted scale score for sexual harassment. Measures of primary appraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984 ) and other indicators of severity have also been used to either multiply or modify measures of sexual harassment (e.g., Bergman et al., 2002 ; Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993 ; Langhout et al., 2005 ).

Survey Research on Sexual Harassment

Like most survey research, surveys on sexual harassment commonly ask respondents about retrospective accounts of sexual harassment. Oftentimes, researchers specify a length of time or specific markers (e.g., “since joining this organization”). This common practice is useful for narrowing the scope of research and being able to draw conclusions about a particular work environment. For example, an organization might design a survey to ask about sexual harassment in the last year at that organization, rather than lifetime experiences of sexual harassment (e.g., “Have you ever experienced sexual harassment?”) in order to assess the current state of sexual harassment prevalence within the organization. However, it is difficult to compare incidence and prevalence rates that use different time periods for sexual harassment (Timmerman & Bajema, 1999 ).

Additionally, the design of the survey is important to gain participation (Miner-Rubino & Jayaratne, 2011 ). Sexual harassment surveys can be off-putting to potential participants, reducing their likelihood in participating (Galesic & Tourangeau, 2007 ). This is especially concerning because those who choose not to respond to a survey on sexual harassment may be the people with the most severe or frequent experiences. The frame of a survey can include the survey title, topic, purpose, or sponsor. Each of these features may influence how people respond to a survey by providing an interpretive framework for the study and facilitating recall of events, and should therefore be considered carefully during survey creation (Galesic & Tourangeau, 2007 ).

Sexual harassment survey research is typically cross-sectional, meaning that all measurements are collected from participants at one specific point in time (i.e., both the “predictors” and the “outcomes” are in the same survey). Even though theory and evidence indicate the likely causal ordering of sexual harassment, its causes, and its consequences, cross-sectional surveys cannot provide evidence of causality (Cook, Campbell, & Shadish, 2002 ). Moreover, cross-sectional surveys are unable to document the lasting effects of sexual harassment on a person’s well-being (Munson et al., 2000 ). Longitudinal methodology, where measurements are collected from participants at multiple points in time, provides a rich resource of information concerning the evolution of these experiences (McDonald, 2012 ). As with any longitudinal research, there are challenges in longitudinal sexual harassment research (e.g., respondents not returning for Time 2, history effects). However, longitudinal approaches provide a closer approximation to causal studies than do cross-sectional studies (Cook et al., 2002 ).

Qualitative Research on Sexual Harassment

A full treatment of qualitative research, its wide variety of approaches, and their epistemological underpinnings is beyond the scope of this review. However, it is important to acknowledge that qualitative research can obtain a richer understanding of participant experiences than quantitative approaches (e.g., behavioral experience measures). One suggestion that may benefit researchers is using a mixed methods approach, where qualitative methods and quantitative methods supplement each other (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004 ; McDonald, 2012 ). Furthermore, when studying forms of sexual harassment that have received less empirical attention, it may be beneficial to use qualitative or ethnographic methods in order to better define these experiences and understand those who have been targets (Miner-Rubino & Jayaratne, 2011 ). In particular, examining the intersectional experiences of harassment targets (e.g., Buchanan, 2005 ; Buchanan & Ormerod, 2002 ) through qualitative methods might be useful. Qualitative research is also well suited to research questions that explore the role that sexual harassment plays in people’s life histories (McLaughlin et al., 2017 ). Although this could be accomplished in quantitative research, qualitative research allows people to tell their stories as they experienced them, rather than conform to the predetermined questions on a survey.

Sampling in Sexual Harassment Survey Research

Sampling methods used in sexual harassment research are another important consideration. Research on sampling methods has shown that random sampling may produce fewer reports of sexual harassment than when using non-random sampling (Timmerman & Bajema, 1999 ). In their meta-analysis, Ilies et al. ( 2003 ) found that non-probability sampling (compared to probability sampling) produced higher reports of sexual harassment when behavioral experiences methods were used, but lower reports of sexual harassment when direct query methods were used.

Concerns remain about using non-random sampling. Arvey and Cavanaugh’s ( 1995 ) evaluation of sexual harassment methodology highlighted the frequent use of convenience samples and the difficulty of low response rates. A primary concern of non-random sampling is possible selection bias, or the over-inclusion of people who have experienced sexual harassment relative to the population (Arvey & Cavanaugh, 1995 ; Timmerman & Bajema, 1999 ).

However, it is also important to consider why purposive sampling can be useful. In particular, the need to account for intersectional narratives of sexual harassment might require intentional over-inclusion of particular subgroups in a sample. As with research using other non-probability samples, research on sexual harassment should be cautious about drawing population-level conclusions when non-probability samples are used.

Research on Perpetrators of Harassment

Although the research on the experiences of targets of sexual harassment has proliferated, there is a notable paucity of studies on harassers themselves (Pina, Gannon, & Saunders, 2009 ). This is likely due to the difficulties associated with sampling perpetrators. To study sexual harassers, participants would have to admit to committing these offenses without fear of stigmatization or legal recourse. It would be unlikely to find a representative sample of these individuals who would be willing to answer these surveys honestly. Nevertheless, the experiences and motives of sexual harassers are needed facets of research in the literature. Particularly, for researchers interested in interventions, studying those who do the harassing may provide a rich source of information to further support theoretical models. The onus for behavioral change can then be placed on the perpetrators of these behaviors instead of on defensive strategies for targets.

Looking Forward: What More Do We Need to Know?

As reviewed here, it is clear that sexual harassment is common enough to be concerning to organizations. Additionally, it is damaging to targets’ well-being. Sexual harassment is also damaging to organizational productivity. Sexual harassment is a gendered experience. People who have more minoritized demographic markers are more likely to experience sexual harassment. Organizations that tolerate sexual harassment have more of it occurring and respond to reports of harassment in worse ways.

Even with all that is known about harassment, there are still many unknowns. One interesting avenue forward is local culture, outside the organization but more localized than a country. How do localized norms of behavior and gender norms influence the experience of sexual harassment? It is possible that these norms influence both the rate of sexual harassment and the types of harassment experienced. Additionally, the relative tolerance of sexual harassment in the organization and the context in which it is embedded (e.g., the industry, the local area) could influence organizational reputation, willingness to report, and other key factors for the organization. A key example of this is the “bro culture” of Silicon Valley start-ups compared with the gender equality in the same area of the country (Chang, 2018 ; Kurtzleben, 2011 ).

Additionally, there has been little attention to the notion of consent in regards to sexual harassment in workplaces. People may choose to “go along” with sexually harassing behaviors because of the power dynamics inherent in many organizations. However, this does not mean that these individuals have provided consent. This raises the question of whether individuals with less organizational power can ever provide consent to a person holding organizational power and their economic fate over them. There may be situations where consent cannot be freely given and where power differences create environments in which targets may engage in behaviors because they feel that they have no other choice. On the one hand, this is a hallmark of any sexual harassment research (i.e., unwelcome and unwanted behaviors). On the other hand, a deeper understanding of power and consent in the workplace could provide insights into how to provide effective anti-harassment training and how to stop sexual harassment.

Little is known about how public events related to sexual harassment affect sexual harassment in the workplace. This is particularly notable at this historical moment, following the recent rise of the #MeToo movement on social media. Whereas the Me Too movement originated with the efforts of Tarana Burke in 2006 (Johnson & Hawbaker, 2019 ), the confluence of harassment allegations against numerous public figures and social media practices led in fall 2017 to the #MeToo social media campaign to raise awareness of the ubiquity of workplace sexual harassment (Kantor & Twohey, 2017 ). It is as yet unknown what the #MeToo movement will do to influence workplace sexual harassment and gendered relationships. For example, the #MeToo movement might usher in a shift in disclosure practices, whereby individuals post about sexual harassment incidents in private and public online forums. Further, the disclosures that occurred during the height of #MeToo could make future disclosures (whether online or through organizational processes) more likely, as people might expect that they will be believed when they make sexual harassment accusations. Yet there are already concerns about the unintentional consequences of the #MeToo movement, such that some men are overreacting to the #MeToo wave and fear spending one-on-one time with female colleagues and subordinates in the workplace (Bennold, 2019 ). This historical moment is ripe with opportunity to examine and understand how public events and discourse about sexual harassment affect sexual harassment in the workplace.

Finally, it is important to note that sexual harassment research has been conducted around the world, but primarily in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe, with additional research arising from Asia. The construction of gender within different cultures is not homogenous, and therefore the influence of sociocultural hierarchies of gender on sexual harassment would be context specific. In addition, the legal definitions of sexual harassment can vary widely across countries, with some countries lacking a language or legal basis against sexual harassment. Although the review herein suggests that regardless of whether there is a legal definition or a label for harassment, it is damaging to the people who experience it, this is not yet fully documented. Further research is needed throughout the world, particularly in Africa, South America, and developing economies.

• Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society , 4 (2), 139–158.
• Adams-Roy, J. , & Barling, J. (1998). Predicting the decision to confront or report sexual harassment. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 19 (4), 329–336.
• Arvey, R. D. , & Cavanaugh, M. A. (1995). Using surveys to assess the prevalence of sexual harassment: Some methodological problems. Journal of Social Issues , 51 (1), 39–52.
• Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) . (2012). Working without fear: Results of the sexual harassment national telephone survey .
• Barling, J. , Dekker, I. , Loughlin, C. A. , Kelloway, E. K. , Fullagar, C. , & Johnson, D. (1996). Prediction and replication of the organizational and personal consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 11 (5), 4–25.
• Barling, J. , Rogers, A. G. , & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Behind closed doors: In-home workers’ experience of sexual harassment and workplace violence. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 6 (3), 255–269.
• Bayard, K. , Hellerstein, J. , Neumark, D. , & Troske, K. (2003). New evidence on sex segregation and sex differences in wages from matched employee-employer data. Journal of Labor Economics , 21 (4), 887–922.
• Bell, M. E. , Street, A. E. , & Stafford, J. (2014). Victims’ psychosocial well-being after reporting sexual harassment in the military. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation , 15 (2), 133–152.
• Bennold, K. (2019, January 27). Another side of #MeToo: Male managers fearful of mentoring women . New York Times .
• Berdahl, J. L. (2007a). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review , 32 (2), 641–658.
• Berdahl, J. L. (2007b). The sexual harassment of uppity women. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 (2), 425–437.
• Berdahl, J. L. , Magley, V. J. , & Waldo, C. R. (1996). The sexual harassment of men?: Exploring the concept with theory and data. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 20 (4), 527–547.
• Berdahl, J. L. , & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 (2), 426–436.
• Bergman, M. E. , & Drasgow, F. (2003). Race as a moderator in a model of sexual harassment: An empirical test. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 8 (2), 131–145.
• Bergman, M. E. , & Henning, J. B. (2008). Sex and ethnicity as moderators in the sexual harassment phenomenon: A revision and test of Fitzgerald et al. (1994). Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 13 (2), 152–167.
• Bergman, M. E. , Langhout, R. D. , Palmieri, P. A. , Cortina, L. M. , & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). The (un) reasonableness of reporting: Antecedents and consequences of reporting sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 (2), 230–242.
• Brooks, L. , & Perot, A. R. (1991). Reporting sexual harassment: Exploring a predictive model. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 15 (1), 31–47.
• Buchanan, N. T. (2005). The nexus of race and gender domination: The racialized sexual harassment of African American women. In P. Morgan & J. Gruber (Eds.), In the company of men: Re-discovering the links between sexual harassment and male domination (pp. 294–320). Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
• Buchanan, N. T. , & Ormerod, A. J. (2002). Racialized sexual harassment in the lives of African American women. Women & Therapy , 25 (3–4), 107–124.
• Burgess, D. , & Borgida, E. (1997). Sexual harassment: An experimental test of sex-role spillover theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 23 (1), 63–75.
• Bursik, K. (1992). Perceptions of sexual harassment in an academic context. Sex Roles , 27 (7–8), 401–412.
• Chang, E. (2018, January 2). “Oh my god, this is so F—ed up”: Inside Silicon Valley’s secretive, orgiastic dark side . Vanity Fair .
• Chen, W. C. , Hwu, H. G. , Kung, S. M. , Chiu, H. J. , & Wang, J. D. (2008). Prevalence and determinants of workplace violence of health care workers in a psychiatric hospital in Taiwan. Journal of Occupational Health , 50 (3), 288–293.
• Cook, T. D. , Campbell, D. T. , & Shadish, W. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
• Conte, A. (2010). Sexual harassment in the workplace: Law and practice (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers Online.
• Cortina, L. M. , Fitzgerald, L. F. , & Drasgow, F. (2002). Contextualizing Latina experiences of sexual harassment: Preliminary tests of a structural model. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 24 (4), 295–311.
• Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum , 1 (8), 139–167.
• Culbertson, A. L. , & Rosenfeld, P. (1993). Understanding sexual harassment through organizational surveys. In P. Rosenfeld , J. E. Edwards , & M. D. Thomas (Eds.), Improving organizational surveys: New directions, methods, and applications (pp. 164–187). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Culbertson, A. L. , & Rosenfeld, P. (1994). Assessment of sexual harassment in the active-duty Navy. Military Psychology , 6 (2), 69–93.
• Das, A. (2009). Sexual harassment at work in the United States. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 38 (6), 909–921.
• Dionisi, A. M. , & Barling, J. (2018). It hurts me too: Examining the relationship between male gender harassment and observers’ well-being, attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 23 (3), 303–319.
• Dionisi, A. M. , Barling, J. , Dupré, K. E. (2012). Revisiting the comparative outcomes of workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 17 (4), 398–408.
• Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) . Eur-Lex , Document 32006L0054.
• Employment New Zealand . (2018, May 31). Sexual and racial harassment .
• Fain, T. C. , & Anderton, D. L. (1987). Sexual harassment: Organizational context and diffuse status. Sex Roles , 17 (5–6), 291–311.
• Firestone, J. M. , & Harris, R. J. (2003). Perceptions of effectiveness of responses to sexual harassment in the US military, 1988 and 1995. Gender, Work and Organization , 10 (1), 42–64.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against women in the workplace. American Psychologist , 48 (10), 1070–1076.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , Buchanan, N. T. , Collinsworth, L. L. , Magley, V. J. , & Ramos, A. M. (1999). Junk logic: The abuse defense in sexual harassment litigation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , 5 (3), 730–759.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. & Cortina, L. M. (2017). Sexual harassment in work organizations: A view from the twenty-first century. In J. W. White & C. Travis (Eds.), Handbook on the psychology of women . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , Drasgow, F. , Hulin, C. L. , Gelfand, M. J. , & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: a test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied psychology , 82 (4), 578–589.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , Drasgow, F. , & Magley, V. J. (1999). Sexual harassment in the armed forces: A test of an integrated model. Military Psychology , 11 (3), 329–343.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , Gelfand, M. J. , & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 17 (4), 425–445.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , Hulin, C. L. , & Drasgow, F. (1995). The antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: An integrated model. In G. P. Keita & J. J. Hurell (Eds.), Job stress in a changing workforce: Investigating gender, diversity, and family issues (pp. 55–73). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , Magley, V. J. , Drasgow, F. , & Waldo, C. R. (1999). Measuring sexual harassment in the military: the sexual experiences questionnaire (SEQ—DoD). Military Psychology , 11 (3), 243–263.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , & Shullman, S. L. (1993). Sexual harassment: A research analysis and agenda for the 1990s. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 42 (1), 5–27.
• Fitzgerald, L. F. , Swan, S. , & Fischer, K. (1995). Why didn’t she just report him? The psychological and legal implications of women’s responses to sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues , 51 (1), 117–138.
• Folkman, S. , Lazarus, R. S. , Gruen, R. J. , & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 50 (3), 571–579.
• Foster, P. J. , & Fullagar, C. J. (2018). Why don’t we report sexual harassment? An application of the theory of planned behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 40 (3), 148–160.
• Funk, L. C. , & Werhun, C. D. (2011). “You’re such a girl!” The psychological drain of the gender-role harassment of men. Sex Roles , 65 (1–2), 13.
• Galesic, M. , & Tourangeau, R. (2007). What is sexual harassment? It depends on who asks! Framing effects on survey responses. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 21 (2), 189–202.
• Gelfand, M. J. , Fitzgerald, L. F. , & Drasgow, F. (1995). The structure of sexual harassment: A confirmatory analysis across cultures and settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 47 (2), 164–177.
• Glomb, T. M. , Richman, W. L. , Hulin, C. L. , Drasgow, F. , Schneider, K. T. , & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 71 (3), 309–328.
• Goldberg, C. , Perry, E. , & Rawski, S. (2018). The direct and indirect effects of organizational tolerance for sexual harassment on the effectiveness of sexual harassment investigation training for HR managers . Human Resource Development Quarterly , 30 (1), 81–100.
• Good, L. , & Cooper, R. (2014). Voicing their complaints? The silence of students working in retail and hospitality and sexual harassment from customers. Labour & Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work , 24 (4), 302–316.
• Griffeth, R. W. , Hom, P. W. , & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management , 26 (3), 463–488.
• Gruber, J. (2003). Sexual harassment in the public sector. In M. Paludi & C. A. Paludi Jr. (Eds.), Academic and workplace sexual harassment: A handbook of cultural, social science, management, and legal perspectives (pp. 49–75). Westport, CT: Praeger /Greenwood.
• Gruber, J. E. , & Smith, M. D. (1995). Women’s responses to sexual harassment: A multivariate analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 17 (4), 543–562.
• Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace . San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
• Gutek, B. A. , & Koss, M. P. (1993). Changed women and changed organizations: Consequences of and coping with sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 42 (1), 28–48.
• de Haas, S. , Timmerman, G. , & Höing, M. (2009). Sexual harassment and health among male and female police officers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 14 (4), 390–401.
• Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2009). The role of pluralistic ignorance in the reporting of sexual harassment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 31 (3), 210–217.
• Harned, M. S. , & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). Understanding a link between sexual harassment and eating disorder symptoms: A mediational analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 70 (5), 1170–1181.
• Harned, M. S. , Ormerod, A. J. , Palmieri, P. A. , Collinsworth, L. L. , & Reed, M. (2002). Sexual assault and other types of sexual harassment by workplace personnel: A comparison of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 7 (2), 174–188.
• Harper, S. R. (2013). Am I my brother’s teacher? Black undergraduates, racial socialization, and peer pedagogies in predominantly white postsecondary contexts. Review of Research in Education , 37 (1), 183–211.
• Hay, M. S. , & Elig, T. W. (1999). The 1995 Department of Defense sexual harassment survey: Overview and methodology. Military Psychology , 11 (3), 233–242.
• Hesson-McInnis, M. S. , & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Sexual harassment: A preliminary test of an integrative model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 27 , 877–901.
• Ho, I. K. , Dinh, K. T. , Bellefontaine, S. A. , & Irving, A. L. (2012). Sexual harassment and posttraumatic stress symptoms among Asian and White women. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma , 21 (1), 95–113.
• Holland, K. J. , Rabelo, V. C. , Gustafson, A. M. , Seabrook, R. C. , & Cortina, L. M. (2016). Sexual harassment against men: Examining the roles of feminist activism, sexuality, and organizational context. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 17 (1), 17–29.
• Hotelling, K. (1991). Sexual harassment: A problem shielded by silence. Journal of Counseling & Development , 69 (6), 497–501.
• Huen, Y. (2007). Workplace sexual harassment in Japan: A review of combating measures taken. Asian Survey , 47 (5), 811–827.
• Hulin, C. L. , Fitzgerald, L. F. , & Drasgow, F. (1996). Organizational influences on sexual harassment . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Hutagalung, F. , & Ishak, Z. (2012). Sexual harassment: A predictor to job satisfaction and work stress among women employees. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 65 , 723–730.
• Ilies, R. , Hauserman, N. , Schwochau, S. , & Stibal, J. (2003). Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harassment in the United States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology , 56 (3), 607–631.
• Jatoi, B. (2018, February 8). Sexual harassment laws in Pakistan . The Express Tribune .
• Johnson, R. B. , & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher , 33 (7), 14–26.
• Johnson, C. A. & Hawbaker K. (2019, March 7). #MeToo: A timeline of events . Chicago Tribune .
• Kantor, J. & Twohey, M. (2017, October 5). Harvey Weinstein paid off sexual harassment accusers for decades . New York Times .
• Knapp, D. E. , Faley, R. H. , Ekeberg, S. E. , & Dubois, C. L. (1997). Determinants of target responses to sexual harassment: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review , 22 (3), 687–729.
• Konik, J. , & Cortina, L. M. (2008). Policing gender at work: Intersections of harassment based on sex and sexuality. Social Justice Research , 21 (3), 313–337.
• Kurtzleben, D. (2011, May 13). The 10 cities with the greatest and least equality . US News and World Report .
• Langhout, R. D. , Bergman, M. E. , Cortina, L. M. , Fitzgerald, L. F. , Drasgow, F. , & Williams, J. H. (2005). Sexual harassment severity: Assessing situational and personal determinants and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 35 (5), 975–1007.
• Latcheva, R. (2017). Sexual harassment in the European Union: A pervasive but still hidden form of gender-based violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 32 , 1821–1852.
• Lazarus, R. S. , & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, coping and appraisal . New York, NY: Springer.
• Lengnick-Hall, M. L. 1995. Sexual harassment research: A methodological critique. Personnel Psychology , 48 (4), 841–864.
• Lim, S. , & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 (3), 483–496.
• Liu, X.‑Y. , Kwan, H. K. , & Chiu, R. K. (2014). Customer sexual harassment and frontline employees’ service performance in China. Human Relations , 67 , 333–356.
• Maass, A. , Cadinu, M. , Guarnieri, G. , & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 85 (5), 853–870.
• Magley, V. J. , Hulin, C. L. , Fitzgerald, L. F. , & DeNardo, M. (1999a). Outcomes of self-labeling sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 84 (3), 390–402.
• Magley, V. J. , Waldo, C. R. , Drasgow, F. , & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999b). The impact of sexual harassment on military personnel: Is it the same for men and women? Military Psychology , 11 (3), 283–302.
• Malamut, A. B. , & Offermann, L. R. (2001). Coping with sexual harassment: Personal, environmental, and cognitive determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 (6), 1152.
• Malik, N. I. , Malik, S. , Qureshi, N. , & Atta, M. (2014). Sexual harassment as predictor of low self esteem and job satisfaction among in-training nurses. FWU Journal of Social Sciences , 8 (2), 107–116.
• Marsh, J. , Patel, S. , Gelaye, B. , Goshu, M. , Worku, A. , Williams, M. A. , & Berhane, Y. (2009). Prevalence of workplace abuse and sexual harassment among female faculty and staff. Journal of Occupational Health , 51 (4), 314–322.
• Mathieu, C. , Fabi, B. , Lacoursière, R. , & Raymond, L. (2016). The role of supervisory behavior, job satisfaction and organizational commitment on employee turnover. Journal of Management & Organization , 22 (1), 113–129.
• Maume, D. J., Jr. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occupational segregation and race and sex differences in managerial promotions. Work and Occupations , 26 (4), 483–509.
• McDonald, P. (2012). Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews , 14 (1), 1–17.
• McLaughlin, H. , Uggen, C. , & Blackstone, A. (2017). The economic and career effects of sexual harassment on working women. Gender & Society , 31 (3), 333–358.
• Merkin, R. S. , & Shah, M. K. (2014). The impact of sexual harassment on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and absenteeism: findings from Pakistan compared to the United States. SpringerPlus , 3 (1), 215.
• Meyer, J. P. , Stanley, D. J. , Herscovitch, L. , & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 61 (1), 20–52.
• Miner-Rubino, K. , & Jayaratne, T. E. (2011). Feminist survey research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. L. Leavy (Ed.), Feminist research practice (pp. 293–325). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Munson, L. J. , Hulin, C. , & Drasgow, F. (2000). Longitudinal analysis of dispositional influences and sexual harassment: Effects on job and psychological outcomes. Personnel Psychology , 53 (1), 21–46.
• Nielsen, M. B. , Bjørkelo, B. , Notelaers, G. , & Einarsen, S. (2010). Sexual harassment: Prevalence, outcomes, and gender differences assessed by three different estimation methods. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma , 19 (3), 252–274.
• Nielsen, M. B. , & Einarsen, S. (2012). Prospective relationships between workplace sexual harassment and psychological distress. Occupational Medicine , 62 (3), 226–228.
• Nye, C. D. , Brummel, B. J. , & Drasgow, F. (2014). Understanding sexual harassment using aggregate construct models. Journal of Applied Psychology , 99 (6), 1204–1221.
• Offermann, L. R. , & Malamut, A. B. (2002). When leaders harass: The impact of target perceptions of organizational leadership and climate on harassment reporting and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 (5), 885–893.
• Ostroff, C. , Kinicki, A. J. , & Muhammad, R. S. (2013). Organizational culture and climate. In N. W. Schmitt & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 643–676). New York, NY: Wiley.
• Parker, S. K. , & Griffin, M. A. (2002). What is so bad about a little name-calling? Negative consequences of gender harassment for overperformance demands and distress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 7 (3), 195–210.
• Parish, W. L. , Das, A. , & Laumann, E. O. (2006). Sexual harassment of women in urban China. Archives Of Sexual Behavior , 35 (4), 411–425.
• Pina, A. , Gannon, T. A. , & Saunders, B. (2009). An overview of the literature on sexual harassment: Perpetrator, theory, and treatment issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 14 (2), 126–138.
• Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles , 17 (5–6), 269–290.
• Pustolka, K. L. (2015). Understanding sexual harassment dilemmas: Complaint management, investigation processes, and workplace impact. In M. A. Paludi , J. L., Martin , J. E. Gruber , & S. Fineran (Eds.), Sexual harassment in education and work settings: Current research and best practices for prevention (pp. 311–322). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger ABC-CLIO.
• Raver, J. L. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2005). Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment, team processes, and team performance. Academy of Management Journal , 48 (3), 387–400.
• Richman-Hirsch, W. L. , & Glomb, T. M. (2002). Are men affected by the sexual harassment of women? Effects of ambient sexual harassment on men. In J. M. Brett & F. Drasgow (Eds.), Psychology of work: Theoretically based empirical research (pp. 121–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior , 23 (3), 257–266.
• Rospenda, K. M. , Fujishiro, K. , Shannon, C. A. , & Richman, J. A. (2008). Workplace harassment, stress, and drinking behavior over time: Gender differences in a national sample. Addictive Behaviors , 33 (7), 964–967.
• Rospenda, K. M. , Richman, J. A. , & Nawyn, S. J. (1998). Doing power: The confluence of gender, race, and class in contrapower sexual harassment. Gender & Society , 12 (1), 40–60.
• Ryan, A. M. , & Wessel, J. L. (2012). Sexual orientation harassment in the workplace: When do observers intervene? Journal of Organizational Behavior , 33 (4), 488–509.
• Schneider, K. T. , Swan, S. , & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology , 82 (3), 401–415.
• Schneider, K. T. , Tomaka, J. , & Palacios, R. (2001). Women’s cognitive, affective, and physiological reactions to a male coworker’s sexist behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 31 (10), 1995–2018.
• Segrave, K. (1994). The sexual harassment of women in the workplace, 1600 to 1993 (pp. 40–60). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
• Settles, I. H. , Buchanan, N. T. , & Colar, B. K. (2012). The impact of race and rank on the sexual harassment of Black and White men in the US military. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 13 (3), 256–263.
• Sims, C. S. , Drasgow, F. , & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2005). The effects of sexual harassment on turnover in the military: Time-dependent modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 (6), 1141–1152.
• Sojo, V. E. , Wood, R. E. , & Genat, A. E. (2016). Harmful workplace experiences and women’s occupational well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 40 (1), 10–40.
• Stockdale, M. S. , Visio, M. , & Batra, L. (1999). The sexual harassment of men: Evidence for a broader theory of sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , 5 (3), 630–664.
• Timmerman, G. , & Bajema, C. (1999). Incidence and methodology in sexual harassment research in Northwest Europe. Women’s Studies International Forum , 22 (6), 673–681.
• Tolbert, S. (2015). “Because they want to teach you about their culture”: Analyzing effective mentoring conversations between culturally responsible mentors and secondary science teachers of indigenous students in mainstream schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 52 (10), 1325–1361.
• Trotter, R. , & Zacur, S. R. (2012). Investigating sexual harassment complaints: An update for managers and employers. SAM Advanced Management Journal , 77 (1), 28–37.
• U.S. Census Bureau . (2013–2017). American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates .
• U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board . (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a problem? Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
• U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board . (1988). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: An update . Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
• U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board . (1994). Working for America: An update . Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
• Vaccaro, A. , & Camba-Kelsay, M. J. (2018). Cultural competence and inclusivity in mentoring, coaching, and advising. New Directions for Student Leadership , 158 , 87–97.
• Wasti, S. A. , Bergman, M. E. , Glomb, T. M. , & Drasgow, F. (2000). Test of the cross-cultural generalizability of a model of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 (5), 766–778.
• Weisman, S. R. (1992 April 17). Landmark sex harassment case in Japan . New York Times International , A3.
• Welsh, S. (1999). Gender and sexual harassment. Annual Review of Sociology , 25 , 169–190.
• Welsh, S. , Carr, J. , MacQuarrie, B. , & Huntley, A. (2006). “I’m not thinking of it as sexual harassment” understanding harassment across race and citizenship. Gender & Society , 20 (1), 87–107.
• Willness, C. R. , Steel, P. , & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology , 60 (1), 127–162.
• Woodzicka, J. A. , & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues , 57 (1), 15–30.
• Woodzicka, J. A. , & LaFrance, M. (2005). The effects of subtle sexual harassment on women’s performance in a job interview. Sex Roles , 53 (1–2), 67–77.

1. The term “minoritized” is used rather than the more common term “minority.” The term “minority” reflects the numerical representation in a group (i.e., less than half, but in particular smaller than another subgroup that is the “majority” of members of a larger group) and the lesser status that the group holds in society. However, many groups are not the numerical minority but are still considered “lesser” (e.g., low income workers, women). Additionally, people are not consistently in the minority (e.g., in their families vs. in the workplace; depending on reference group, for example that African-Americans are a numerical minority in Tennessee as a whole, but not in Memphis, a city in Tennessee that is nearly 10% of that state’s population [U.S. Census Bureau, 2013–2017 ]), so the minoritization of people is an active process rather than a simple description of their experiences or numerical location in society. The term minority implies that the lesser status is a function of the small number, that is, if there were more people from the “minority group” within the larger group, then they would have greater power and equal power when the numbers are equal. This perspective overlooks the institutional and structural inequalities that exist which prevent equal power even when numerical constituencies are equal. For a review of this term and examples of how this term influences research questions and approaches, see Harper ( 2013 ), Tolbert ( 2015 ), and Vaccaro and Camba-Kelsay ( 2018 ).

Related Articles

• Workplace Deviance
• Men, Masculinities, and Gender Relations

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Business and Management. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 08 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.66.14.236]
• 185.66.14.236

Character limit 500 /500

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine; Committee on the Impacts of Sexual Harassment in Academia; Benya FF, Widnall SE, Johnson PA, editors. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2018 Jun 12.

Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

2 Sexual Harassment Research

This chapter reviews the information gathered through decades of sexual harassment research. It provides definitions of key terms that will be used throughout the report, establishing a common framework from the research literature and the law for discussing these issues. In reviewing what sexual harassment research has learned over time, the chapter also examines the research methods for studying sexual harassment and the appropriate methods for conducting this research in a reliable way. The chapter provides information on the prevalence of sexual harassment and common characteristics of how sexual harassment is perpetrated and experienced across lines of industry, occupation, and social class. It concludes with common characteristics of environments where sexual harassment is more likely to occur.

• DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines define sexual harassment as the following ( USEEOC n.d.a .):

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when 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.

Sexual harassment was first recognized in cases in which women lost their jobs because they rejected sexual overtures from their employers (e.g., Barnes v. Costle 1977 1 ). This type of sexual harassment became defined as quid pro quo sexual harassment (Latin for “this for that,” meaning that a job or educational opportunity is conditioned on some kind of sexual performance). Such coercive behavior was judged to constitute a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Soon it was recognized in employment law that pervasive sexist behavior from coworkers can create odious conditions of employment—what became known as a hostile work environment —and also constitute illegal discrimination ( Farley 1978 ; MacKinnon 1979 ; Williams v. Saxbe 1976 2 ). These two basic forms of sexual harassment, quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment, were summarized in guidelines issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1980 ( USEEOC 1980 ).

Hostile work or educational environments can be created by behaviors such as addressing women in crude or objectifying terms, posting pornographic images in the office, and by making demeaning or derogatory statements about women, such as telling anti-female jokes. Hostile environment harassment also encompasses unwanted sexual overtures such as exposing one's genitals, stroking and kissing someone, and pressuring a person for dates even if no quid pro quo is involved ( Bundy v. Jackson 1981; 3 Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson 1986 4 ).

An important distinction between quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment is that the former usually involves a one-on-one relationship in which the perpetrator has control of employment- or educational-related rewards or punishments over the target. In contrast, the latter can involve many perpetrators and many targets. In the hostile environment form of sexual harassment, coworkers often exhibit a pattern of hostile sexist behavior toward multiple targets over an extended period of time ( Holland and Cortina 2016 ). For hostile sex-related or gender-related behavior to be considered illegal sexual harassment, it must be pervasive or severe enough to be judged as having had a negative impact upon the work or educational environment. Therefore, isolated or single instances of such behavior typically qualify only when they are judged to be sufficiently severe. Legal scholars and judges continue to use the two subtype definitions of quid pro quo and hostile environment to define sexual harassment.

Illegal sexual harassment falls under the umbrella of a more comprehensive category, discriminatory behavior . Illegal discrimination can occur on the basis of any legally protected category: race, ethnicity, religious creed, age, sex, gender identity, marital status, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, genetic information, physical or mental disabilities, veteran status, prior conviction of a crime, gender identity or expression, or membership in other protected classes set forth in state or federal law. Regarding sexual harassment, the focus of this report, this includes gender harassment , a term designed to emphasize that harmful or illegal sexual harassment does not have to be about sexual activity ( USEEOC n.d.b .). Sexual harassment constitutes discrimination because it is harmful and it is based on gender—it is not necessarily motivated by sexual desire nor does it need to involve sexual activity.

Both legal doctrine and social science research recognize gender as encompassing both one's biological sex and gender-based stereotypes and expectations, such as heterosexuality and proper performance of gender roles. Sexual harassment in the form of gender harassment can be based on the violation of cultural gender stereotypes. For example, a man may experience gender harassment for being a “sissy” or being easily embarrassed by pornography (violating stereotypes that men should be strong, heterosexual, and sexually bold). While a woman may be gender harassed for taking a job traditionally held by a man or in a traditionally male field. Gender harassment in such a situation might consist of actions to sabotage the woman's tools, machinery, or equipment, or telling the woman she is not smart enough for scientific work. Subsequent sections of this report discuss gender harassment in greater detail.

Psychologists who study gender-related behavior have developed more nuanced terms to describe sexual harassment in order to more precisely measure and account for the behaviors that constitute sexual harassment and to describe how targets experience those behaviors. A three-part classification system divides sexual harassment into distinct but related categories: sexual coercion , unwanted sexual attention , and gender harassment (see Figure 2-1 ; Fitzgerald et al. 1988 ; 5 Fitzgerald, Gelfand, and Drasgow 1995 ; Gelfand, Fitzgerald, and Drasgow 1995 ).

The relationship between discriminatory behaviors, sex/gender discrimination, sexual harassment, gender harassment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and hostile environment harassment. While sexual coercion is by definition quid pro quo sexual harassment, (more...)

Sexual coercion entails sexual advances, and makes the conditions of employment (or education, for students) contingent upon sexual cooperation.

Unwanted sexual attention also entails sexual advances, but it does not add professional rewards or threats to force compliance. In this category are expressions of romantic or sexual interest that are unwelcome, unreciprocated, and offensive to the target; examples include unwanted touching, hugging, stroking, and persistent requests for dates or sexual behavior despite discouragement, and can include assault ( Cortina, Koss, and Cook 2018 ; Fitzgerald, Gelfand, and Drasgow 1995 ; Fitzgerald, Swan, and Magley 1997 ).

Gender harassment is by far the most common type of sexual harassment. It refers to ‘‘a broad range of verbal and nonverbal behaviors not aimed at sexual cooperation but that convey insulting, hostile, and degrading attitudes about” members of one gender ( Fitzgerald, Gelfand, and Drasgow 1995 , 430). Gender harassment is further defined as two types: sexist hostility and crude harassment . Examples of the sexist hostility form of gender harassment for women include demeaning jokes or comments about women, comments that women do not belong in leadership positions or are not smart enough to succeed in a scientific career, and sabotaging women. The crude harassment form of gender harassment is defined as the use of sexually crude terms that denigrate people based on their gender (e.g., using insults such as “slut” to refer to a female coworker or “pussy” to refer to a male coworker; Fitzgerald, Gelfand, and Drasgow 1995 ).

Both women and men can and do experience all three forms of sexual harassment, but some subgroups face higher rates than others. For example, women who are lesbian or bisexual ( Cortina et al. 1998 ; Konik and Cortina 2008 ), women who endorse gender-egalitarian beliefs ( Dall'Ara and Maass 1999 ; Siebler, Sabelus, and Bohner 2008 ), and women who are stereotypically masculine in behavior, appearance, or personality ( Berdahl 2007b ; Leskinen, Rabelo, and Cortina 2015 ) experience sexual harassment at higher rates than other women. Likewise, men who are gay, transgender, petite, or in some way perceived as “not man enough” encounter more harassment than other men ( Berdahl 2007b ; Fitzgerald and Cortina 2017 ; Rabelo and Cortina 2014 ).

Interestingly, the motivation underlying sexual coercion and unwanted sexual attention behaviors appears different from the motivation underlying gender harassment. Whereas the first two categories suggest sexual advances (the goal being sexual exploitation of women), the third category is expressing hostility toward women (the goals being insult, humiliation, or ostracism) ( Holland and Cortina 2016 ). In other words, sexual coercion and unwanted sexual attention can be viewed as “come-ons,” while gender harassment is, for all intents and purposes, a “put-down” ( Fitzgerald, Gelfand, and Drasgow 1995 ; Leskinen, Cortina, and Kabat 2011 ). However, it is important to note that these come-on behaviors are not necessarily about attraction to women; more often than not, they are instead motivated by the desire to devalue women or punish those who violate gender norms ( Berdahl 2007b ; Cortina and Berdahl 2008 ).

Some researchers further define the verbal insults associated with gender harassment, along with accompanying nonverbal affronts, as microaggressions. This term refers to “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative” messages ( Sue et al. 2007 , 271) to or about historically stigmatized groups. This term can also be broken down into three categories: microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations ( Sue et al. 2007 ). There is some concern that microaggression remains a poorly defined construct, with porous boundaries. Additionally, the use of the term micro is misleading, as it implies all these experiences are minor or imperceptible acts. Yet some microaggressions, such as referring to people by using offensive names, are obviously offensive and can be deeply damaging. Similarly the root word aggression is also misleading, as most experts reserve this term for behavior that carries intent to harm ( Lilienfeld 2017 ). For these reasons, our committee chose to focus on incivility , a term in greater use in the workplace aggression literature.

Incivility refers to “low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others” ( Andersson and Pearson 1999 , 457). Lim and Cortina's 2005 study on two female populations in public-sector organizations (Ns = 833 and 1,425) revealed that sexual harassment often takes place against a backdrop of incivility, or in other words, in an environment of generalized disrespect. The authors argue that, based on their findings, the same perpetrator “may instigate multiple forms of mistreatment—both sexualized and generalized—in efforts to debase women and reinforce or raise their own social advantage” (492). Lim and Cortina point out that if sexual harassment is tolerated in an organization or not seen as a deviant behavior, incidents of general incivility would be expected to be even less likely to receive attention from management. Based on these findings, it could be argued that generalized incivility should be a red flag for leadership or management in work and education environments, because when gender harassment occurs, it is virtually always in environments with high rates of uncivil conduct ( Cortina et al. 2002 ; Lim and Cortina 2005 ).

Note that sexual harassment is often ambient , meaning it is “not clearly targeted at any individual or group of individuals” ( Parker 2008 , 947) in the work or education environment or behavior that goes beyond the direct target of the harassment ( Glomb et al. 1997 ). Ambient sexual harassment is determined by a general “frequency of sexually harassing behavior experienced by others” and can include all types of sexually harassing behavior (309). For example, it can include pornography being displayed in a common area or sexually abusive language being used publicly in the work or education environment ( Parker 2008 ). Ambient unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion refer to observed instances of unwanted sexual pursuit, targeted at a fellow employee. In other words, one need not be personally targeted to feel the effects of sexual harassment (much like second-hand smoke).

Despite refined definitions and terms to describe sexual harassment and gender discrimination, documenting the degree of these behaviors in work and education environments remains challenging. This is in part because individuals experiencing these behaviors rarely label them as such. Numerous studies have demonstrated that more than half of working women report experiencing sexually harassing behavior at work, but less than 20 percent of those women actually describe the experience as “sexual harassment” ( Ellis, Barak, and Pinto 1991 ; Ilies et al. 2003 ; Magley, Hulin, et al. 1999 ; Magley and Shupe 2005 ).

Considering these sources, the report uses the following definition of sexual harassment:

Sexual harassment (a form of discrimination) is composed of three categories of behavior: (1) gender harassment (verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one gender), (2) unwanted sexual attention (verbal or physical unwelcome sexual advances, which can include assault), and (3) sexual coercion (when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditioned on sexual activity). Harassing behavior can be either direct (targeted at an individual) or ambient (a general level of sexual harassment in an environment).

Box 2-1 provides a quick review of the key terms introduced in this chapter.

Summary of Key Terms.

• RESEARCH METHODS USED TO EXAMINE SEXUAL HARASSMENT

The goal of providing recommendations for preventing sexual harassment and mitigating its effects in academic science, engineering, and medicine requires evidence-based research. Different studies have different strengths and weaknesses, and these should be kept in mind when reviewing their findings, particularly if leaders in academic institutions, legislators, and researchers hope to design meaningful and effective interventions and policies. The two most commonly used study methods are surveys and laboratory experiments. Important findings have also emerged using in-depth interviews, case studies, sociolegal analyses, and other methods. When conducting or reviewing research examining sexual harassment, it is crucial that the methods used to conduct the research match the goals for the research. It is crucial to note that the prevalence of sexual harassment in a population is best estimated using representative surveys and not by relying on the invariably lower number of official reports of sexual harassment made to an organization (see the discussion in Chapter 4 about how rare it is for women to formally report their experience). The next sections discuss these various research methods and the kind of information they provide.

Survey Methods

Surveys, containing well-validated instruments, can be useful in estimating the prevalence (how common sexual harassment experiences or behaviors are among people in a given population) and determining correlates, antecedents, outcomes, and factors that attenuate or amplify outcomes from sexual harassment. For instance, they can assess links between harassment and different aspects of targets' well-being, targets' understanding of the resources available to them, and the strategies they use to cope. Basing a survey on a defined population accessible from a comprehensive list, or sample frame, can be helpful. Sometimes, too, using multiple instruments and data sources can be a highly effective approach. Though surveys have often focused on the targets of sexually harassing behavior (e.g., Fitzgerald, Drasgow, and Magley 1999 ), some work has also been done examining self-descriptions by perpetrators (e.g., Dekker and Barling 1998 ) and bystanders (e.g., Hitlan, Schneider, and Walsh 2006 ; Richman-Hirsch and Glomb 2002 ; Miner-Rubino and Cortina 2004 , 2007 ).

Conducting surveys on sexual harassment is challenging, but fortunately researchers have addressed many of these challenges. Those wishing to conduct a survey on sexual harassment ought to follow the scientific methods described below and the ethical and safety guidelines for this type of research ( WHO 2001 ). Poorly conducting surveys on sexual harassment is unethical because responding to the survey could needlessly retraumatize the respondent. Additionally, the resulting inaccurate data from such a survey could be used to question the importance and legitimacy of such an important and sensitive topic ( WHO 2001 ).

An initial challenge in conducting survey research on sexual harassment is that many women are not likely to label their experiences as sexual harassment. Additionally, women who experience the gender harassment type of sexual harassment are more than 7 times less likely to label their experiences as “sexual harassment” than women who experience unwanted sexual attention or sexual coercion ( Holland and Cortina 2013 ). This illustrates what other research has shown: that in both the law and the lay public, the dominant understandings of sexual harassment overemphasize two forms of sexual harassment, sexual coercion and unwanted sexual attention, while downplaying the third (most common) type—gender harassment (see Figure 2-2 ; Leskinen, Cortina, and Kabat 2011 ; Schultz 1998 ). Regardless of whether women self-label their experiences as sexual harassment or not, they all have similar negative psychological and professional outcomes ( Magley, Hulin, et al. 1999 ; Woodzicka and LaFrance 2005 ).

The public consciousness of sexual harassment and specific sexually harassing behaviors.

This labeling issue was first identified in research on rape and sexual violence. Surveys conducted by Koss (1992) revealed that when respondents were asked simply, “Have you been raped?” estimates of the number of people raped in the college population were very low, yet when asked whether they had experienced a series of specific behaviors that would meet legal criteria for rape, estimates of the number of people raped were much higher. Subsequent studies of sexual harassment found similar results ( Ilies et al. 2003 ; Schneider, Pryor, and Fitzgerald 2011 ), and Fitzgerald and colleagues (1988) established the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ) to standardize questions about specific sexual harassment behaviors rather than asking about “sexual harassment” generally. With extensive psychometric evidence supporting it, the SEQ has become the gold standard in the assessment of sexual harassment experiences in both work and school settings ( Cortina and Berdahl 2008 ). Unfortunately, some recent studies attempting to measure the prevalence of sexual harassment have not followed this good practice and are thus likely to have low prevalence rates, be missing data about those who have experienced gender harassment, and as a result be unreliable for evaluating the prevalence of sexual harassment.

Another hurdle faced by surveys on sexual harassment is that women who have experienced sexual harassment may be reluctant to respond to a survey on the topic or to admit being a target or victim because sexual harassment can be stigmatizing, humiliating, and traumatizing ( Greco, O'Boyle, and Walter 2015 ; Bumiller 1987 , 1992 ). To encourage open self-reports, it is important that survey responses are confidential, if not anonymous, and to reassure survey participants that this is the case. Additionally, to help avoid a nonresponse bias (i.e., some segments of a population selectively declining to participate), sexual harassment experts do not use the term sexual harassment or sexual misconduct in the survey title and instead situate their questions about sexual harassment within a broader survey that asks about social concerns such as gender issues, civility, or culture. In a meta-analytic review of the incidence of sexual harassment in the United States, Ilies and colleagues (2003) found that directly asking respondents whether they had experienced sexual harassment (as opposed to using questionnaires that list behaviors that constitute sexual harassment) led to substantially lower estimates of sexual harassment incidence.

When determining prevalence estimates, attention must be given to minimizing nonresponse biases in the survey sample. Nonresponse biases include attitudes and other characteristics that disincline people from survey participation ( Krosnick et al. 2015 ). A reluctance to answer questions about sexually harassing experiences could represent a nonresponse bias. While low response rates are not synonymous with low levels of nonresponse bias, generally low response rates should be interpreted with caution and will raise limitations on what conclusions can be drawn because of the representativeness of the survey sample ( Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2008 ; Ilies et al. 2003 ). Just as it is important to be cautious about deriving prevalence estimates from samples with lower response rates, researchers and leaders in academic institutions must also be judicious when deriving such estimates from nonprobability samples (see Yeager, Krosnick, and Javitz [2009] for a discussion of the problems with opt-in internet surveys). 6

A challenge for any survey that is particularly important for sexual harassment surveys is their ability to gather information about nonmajority members of a given workplace or campus. Often women of color and sexual- and gender-minority women have been underrepresented among survey respondents, resulting in unreliable prevalence rates for these specific populations. Recent research is beginning to address this by looking at sexual harassment through the lens of intersectionality and by working to oversample these underrepresented populations when conducting surveys.

Convenience sampling (in which participants are recruited from social media or specialized groups with a specific target group in mind) and snowball sampling (recruiting additional subjects by asking participants who else they know in their networks who would also know about the topic) are useful means of recruiting hard-to-reach or underrepresented populations (e.g., lesbians who are not “out” at work, minority groups for whom no lists are available) ( Meyer and Wilson 2009 ). These studies can yield critical insights, even though the samples cannot be considered representative of a particular population. A good example of this approach is the recent study about the experiences of women of color in the fields of astronomy and planetary science, identified via convenience sampling. The researchers found that women of color were more likely to report hearing sexist remarks from supervisors or peers in the workplace than did white women, white men, or men of color. Women of color were also more likely to feel unsafe at work because of their gender ( Clancy et al. 2017 ). This study shows how survey data can be used to test relationships among important variables such as race, gender, sexual harassment, and sense of safety, yielding conclusions about who is most likely to be targeted for sexually harassing behaviors, and with what effects.

When determining and comparing prevalence rates, it is important to distinguish the prevalence rates for women separate from men and not to rely on a combined prevalence for both genders. Relying on combined rates will result in a lower rate because women are much more likely to experience sexual harassment than men ( USMSPB 1995 ; Magley, Waldo, et al. 1999 ; Ilies et al. 2003 ; Kabat-Farr and Cortina 2014 ).

Another methodological feature to be particularly attentive to when estimating and comparing prevalence rates is the time period respondents are asked about. In some studies, no time limit is given, while others may limit it to the last 12 or 24 months. The longer the time period, the more likely the rates will be skewed and not assess current incidence. Longer time periods can result in higher incidence rates because more time means more women are likely to have experienced such behavior. However, after long enough periods, memory deterioration sets in, leaving behind only those sexual harassment experiences that left a lasting memory, and leaving out everyday sexist comments or ambient harassment. Additionally, longer time periods can also introduce the risk that the incident could have occurred at a past environment, not the current one under investigation.

Lastly, a key obstacle to obtaining accurate prevalence numbers across academia and between fields or workplaces is the number of surveys available that do not always use a standardized method for measuring or defining sexual harassment. Unfortunately, when institutions make their decisions about which survey or questions to use, they often do not seem to be aware of good practices in sexual harassment research or to have consulted with a sexual harassment researcher, because different methodologies and measurement approaches have been used ( Wood et al. 2017 ). As a result, the surveys not only produce unreliable prevalence numbers but also pose a risk of “comparing apples to oranges” when analyzing the data across institutions. The largest concern when comparing prevalence rates is differences in how sexual harassment is defined in the survey and during the analysis of the responses. A meta-analysis of sexual harassment surveys demonstrates that the prevalence rate is 24 percent when women are asked whether they have experienced “sexual harassment” versus 58 percent when they are asked whether they experienced harassing behaviors that meet the definition of sexual harassment (and are then classified as such in the analysis) ( Ilies et al. 2003 ). In other words, the direct query method gives an estimate of prevalence based on the respondent's perception, while the behavioral experiences method estimates the extent to which potentially harassing incidents happen in an organization. This research also demonstrates that these differences were not due to differences in work environments or to sampling method ( Ilies et al. 2003 ).

To try to present the most accurate information on the prevalence of sexual harassment, the report references surveys that follow good practices in both sexual harassment research and survey research and that clearly identify differences in time period and definitions.

Experimental Methods

Another way that information has been gathered about sexual harassment has been through laboratory experiments, in which researchers examine the occurrence of sexually harassing behaviors by manipulating variables under controlled conditions. The advantage of this approach is that researchers can directly observe sexually harassing behavior. This approach, however, does not provide information on the prevalence of sexual harassment.

Some of the behaviors that have been directly observed in experiments include the following:

• Unsolicited sexual touching by someone in a supervisory role ( Pryor, LaVite, and Stoller 1993 );
• Unsolicited touching from peers ( Pryor 1987 );
• Nonverbal dominance behaviors ( Murphy, Driscoll, and Kelly 1999 );
• Sending unsolicited pornographic materials electronically ( Dall'Ara and Maass 1999 ; Maass et al. 2003 );
• Sending sexist jokes electronically ( Galdi, Maass, and Cadinu 2014 );
• Sending sexual come-ons electronically ( Diehl, Rees, and Bohner 2012 );
• Asking sexist questions in an interview ( Hitlan et al. 2009 ); and
• Sexualized behavior, such as staring at a woman's body, during an interview ( Rudman and Borgida 1995 ).

Laboratory experiments can help uncover situational factors that encourage or discourage potential perpetrators from engaging in sexually harassing behavior. For instance, experiments show that sexual harassment is less likely to occur if those behaviors are not accepted by authority figures ( Pryor, LaVite, and Stoller 1993 ). Another experiment found that men exposed to sexist television portrayals of women were more likely to send sexist jokes to women in an online interaction ( Galdi, Maass, and Cadinu 2014 ).

Laboratory experiments can also provide a snapshot of how women might respond in a sexually harassing situation. For example, research by Woodzicka and LaFrance (2001) reveals the difference between how women think they would respond and how they do respond. In the first study, college women were asked to imagine how they would respond to being asked sexist questions during a job interview. In the second study, women participated in what they thought to be an actual job interview where such questions were asked. Results showed a disconnect between what women thought they would do (get angry, confront, and complain) and what they actually did (become fearful, neither confront nor complain).

On the other hand, there are also limitations to laboratory experiments. While they can reveal responses to actual behaviors, those reactions occur in an artificial laboratory setting (not a real professional or educational setting, with people who have real relationships, interdependencies, status hierarchies, etc.). Participants in experiments are often college students who have limited work experience and diversity (primarily white, middle class, under the age of 20). Also, experiments provide a snapshot of only one moment of time, providing a single look at behaviors and responses. Surveys and accounts from litigants in sexual harassment cases suggest that the worst cases of sexual harassment are not isolated incidents, but something that takes place over a period of time ( Cantalupo and Kidder 2017a , 2017b ), which experiments cannot assess.

Interviews, Case Studies, and Other Qualitative Methods

Qualitative research offers a wide range of methodologies that can be useful in understanding sexual harassment, though it is best known for individual, semi-structured interviews ( Bazeley 2003 ). Qualitative research can also be conducted in focus groups, bringing together similar constituencies in order to facilitate conversations among participants. Several social science disciplines also use ethnographic or autoethnographic methods. Ethnography is a systematic way of participating and observing in particular settings or cultures to answer research questions about the intersection of culture and lived experience, where autoethnography invites researchers to reflect on their personal experiences, and connect those experiences to a wider research question. For instance, much of the early work on sexual harassment in the field sciences was either interviews or autoethnography, particularly among cultural anthropologists, who often conduct their field work alone (e.g., Sharp and Kremer 2006 ). Qualitative approaches also include textual analysis of existing primary sources (e.g., studying science syllabi or job postings for gendered language), and case studies or narratives, where a single story is followed in depth. Case study data is often collected via interview, the difference being that rather than interviewing a large enough number to achieve saturation, a researcher will go for greater depth with each participant to construct a more detailed narrative (e.g., Banerjee and Pawley 2013 ).

Qualitative approaches are widely recognized as the method of choice for generating insight into complex phenomena, the contexts in which they occur, and their consequences ( Cho, Crenshaw, and McCall 2013 ). Such methods are thought to be particularly well suited to providing key background information and highlighting the experiences and perceptions of targets of oppression, such as those who have experienced sexual harassment. The approach also gives a voice to perspectives that tend not to be heard or to those with experiences that have few precedents in prior research ( Sofaer 1999 ).

Sociolegal Methods

Sociolegal studies is an interdisciplinary field in which scholars use all the research methods described above (surveys, experiments, interviews, case studies, ethnography) to study a wide range of topics about formal laws, law-like systems of rules, and the social and political relationships that help constitute what law is ( Banakar and Travers 2005 ). Legal research methods are also a part of sociolegal methods, and these include doctrinal analysis, legal history and doctrinal development studies, and answering questions about exactly what formal legal rules exist across jurisdictions and interrelated areas of law, where there is often ambiguity and conflict. Sociolegal scholars are, of course, attentive to what formal rules and laws actually exist (with sexual harassment, it is Title VII and Title IX doctrines), but a starting approach is to presume that what law is and how it works is much more complex than doctrinal study alone can reveal.

Sociolegal research methods tend to be based in the empirical, observational social sciences supported by legal research. Classic studies using these methods have documented how ordinary people generally resolve their disputes using local customs and norms rather than formal law ( Macaulay 1963 ; Ellickson 1991 ); how bringing a personal injury claim in a small community is a mark of outsider, subordinated status ( Engel 1984 ); and how difficult it can be for people who have experienced discrimination to use legal protections, because doing so causes them to feel victimized again ( Bumiller 1992 ). These types of sociolegal studies share the strengths and limitations of ethnographic and qualitative research methods generally: on the one hand, they can capture the rich contextual detail of a particular setting, group of people, and set of relationships, but on the other hand, they are limited in time and location, and do not yield broadly generalizable claims. Nonetheless, decades of research using these methods have yielded a considerable body of research that strongly suggests that what the formal law is and what people understand it to be are often quite far apart; that using formal systems to make claims about wrongs done to them is a very difficult thing for most people to do, though it can be empowering and produce social change; and that laws and the legal system typically support existing power structures rather than fundamentally reshape them ( Freeman 1978 ; Edelman 2016 ; Berrey, Nelson, and Nielsen 2017 ).

A sociolegal research method requires study of the law at many levels of experience to approach sexual harassment, for example, because it matters just as much what women think they deserve or will likely get as what the law formally offers them. Anna-Maria Marshall's study of sexual harassment experiences among female staff members at a midwestern university in 1997–1998, for example, combined in-depth interviewing of 25 female staff members with legal analysis at the national level, policy analysis at the university level, and a survey sent to 1,000 female employees selected at random from a university workplace to understand what counted as sexual harassment from their perspectives ( Marshall 2005 ). Whether something in a science, engineering, and medicine educational or workplace setting is sexual harassment is a category of experience for everyone involved, in other words, that must be assigned meaning, obligations, rights, duties, and processes.

Sociolegal scholars can also bridge between the social science methodologies and the law through research on what they call the “iceberg” or the “tip-of-the-iceberg” problem. The tip-of-the-iceberg problem is the recognition by researchers that published legal disputes are a very skewed and systematically unrepresentative sample from the universe of disputes. As Peter Siegelman and John Donohue (1990) describe the problem, “Most potential disputes never get defined by the actors as such, most actual disputes don't go to court, most court cases are settled rather than adjudicated, and most adjudicated cases are not appealed” (1133). Their analysis of published and unpublished district court opinions suggests that cases that reach the stage of a published judicial opinion may concern newer areas of case law or more dramatic or unusual circumstances that help explain why these cases were not disposed of earlier and before they appear for researchers to find. Publication as a legal outcome is one of the only ways a sexual harassment case could come to be known and studied, but there are many more legally protected routes to keeping cases and their outcomes from view. Confidential settlements, nondisclosure agreements, confidential notations in an academic or employment record, and dispositions of complaints that are not written down are all outcomes that cannot be studied, tracked, counted, or assessed.

Even when legal scholars attempt to collect samples of hundreds of sexual harassment claims, such as Ann Juliano and Stewart J. Schwab's 2000 survey of every reported federal district and appellate court ruling on sexual harassment between 1986 and 1995, totaling nearly 650, they concede that these cases are not representative of the universe of incidents. Juliano and Schwab found that the most successful cases involved sexual conduct directed at a specific target in a mostly male workplace that the target had complained about but which the employer had failed to respond to with any formal process ( Juliano and Schwab 2000 , 593). Another study, Nancy Chi Cantalupo and William Kidder's (2017b) recent study of sexual harassment in the academic context, attempts to pull cases from as far down the iceberg as possible, drawing in incidents recorded in more venues than the usual publication sources for judicial opinions, including media reports, administrative civil rights investigations at the Departments of Education and Justice, published lawsuits by students, and lawsuits over reinstatement for faculty members fired for sexual harassment. Cantalupo and Kidder find more physical (as opposed to verbal) harassment conduct and more evidence of serial harassers in documented complaints than survey researchers have found, for example. Even if they are not based in representative samples of cases and thus cannot be used to generalize about harassment rates, studies such as these can still yield important research conclusions about sexual harassment adjudications and judicial attitudes toward them.

• PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Studies on sexual harassment from the 1980s through today continue to show that sexual harassment of women is widespread in workplaces and that the rates of sexual harassment have not significantly decreased. Studies have also identified common characteristics of sexual harassment in different workplaces and uncovered characteristics of workplaces that are associated with higher rates of sexual harassment. This section and the next one review what research can tell us about the trends in sexual harassment rates over time and what the common characteristics are of sexual harassment and sexually harassing environments.

Wherever possible, the report cites the most recent scientific studies of a topic. That said, the empirical research into sexual harassment, using rigorous scientific methods, dates back to the 1980s. This report cites conclusions from the earlier work when those results reveal historical trends or patterns over time. It also cites results from earlier studies when there is no theoretical reason to expect findings to have changed with the passage of time. For example, the inverse relationship between sexual harassment and job satisfaction is a robust one: the more an individual is harassed on the job, the less she or he likes that job. That basic finding has not changed over the course of 30 years, and there is no reason to expect that it will.

To access the trends in prevalence for sexual harassment, ideally we would examine longitudinal data that uses a well-validated behavior-based instrument for different workplaces and industries; unfortunately, this data is not available. The U.S. Merit System Protection Board (USMSPB) was one of the first organizations to study sexual harassment, with a focus on the federal workforce, which includes a variety of job types and workplace environments. The USMSPB surveys, conducted in 1980, 1987, 1994, and 2016, asked scientifically selected samples of federal workers about their experiences of specific forms of sexual harassment 7 at work in the past 24 months. These surveys used behavioral questions; however, they did not use the SEQ, and in earlier years the survey did not ask about nonsexualized forms of gender harassment such as sexist comments, which are known to be the most common form of sexual harassment ( Kabat-Farr and Cortina 2014 ). As a result, this is not a good source of longitudinal data covering all three forms of sexual harassment.

This survey does, however, provide an opportunity to assess a population's understanding of the term sexual harassment. The USMSPB conducted surveys that asked respondents whether they would classify certain behaviors as “sexual harassment.” The results showed that from 1980 to 2016 the proportion of respondents who classify the behaviors as sexual harassment rose, demonstrating an improvement in the population's understanding of that term. The percentage of men who believe that pressuring a female coworker for sexual favors is sexual harassment rose from 65 percent in 1980 to 93 percent in 1994 and to 97 percent in 2016. Likewise, the percentage of men who perceived unwanted sexual remarks in the workplace as being sexual harassment rose from 42 percent in 1980 to 64 percent in 1994 and to 94 percent in 2016. There was also an increase seen in the perceptions of women—the percentage of women who considered a coworker's sexual remarks as sexual harassment rose from 54 percent in 1980 to 77 percent in 1994 and to 95 percent in 2016. It is also significant to note that of respondents experiencing sexual harassing behaviors in the 2016 survey, only about 11 percent took any kind of formal action, such as filing a complaint or report with their organization ( USMSPB 2018 ). As the results just discussed demonstrate, this lack of reporting was not due to respondents inaccurately defining sexual harassment; rather, it reflects a reluctance by people to take formal action, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 .

The U.S. military is the other organization to study sexual harassment through large surveys early on and over multiple years. Starting in 1995 and going to 2012 8 the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) has used an SEQ-format survey that asked about more than 20 specific sex- or gender-related behaviors experienced in the past 12 months. As shown in the results in Table 2-1 , the data demonstrate that the prevalence of all three types of sexual harassment has been consistent. It also demonstrates that the gender-harassing form of sexual harassment (broken out into crude and offensive behavior and sexist behavior) is by far the most prevalent type of sexually harassing behavior, a finding that is consistent with research in other workplace settings ( Kabat-Farr and Cortina 2014 ).

Rate of Active Duty Military Women Experiencing Sexually Harassing Behaviors at Least Once in the Past 12 Months as Measured in 2000, 2006, 2010, and 2012.

Given that there is limited longitudinal data on the prevalence of sexual harassment that uses a well-validated behavior-based instrument, the best analysis of the prevalence of sexual harassment across workplaces and time comes from a meta-analysis by Ilies and colleagues (2003) . Based on more than 86,000 respondents from 55 probability samples, Illies and colleagues demonstrate that on average, 58 percent of women experience sexually harassing behaviors at work. Looking further into the different workplace sectors, the researchers found that there was some variation between sectors, with the prevalence ranging from 43 to 69 percent (this is discussed further in Chapter 3 when comparing the academic environment to other sectors). Their analysis of trends over time revealed that over the 25 years examined, women who responded to surveys with behavioral-based instruments (and which used a probability sample) reported increasingly more experiences of sexual harassment. The authors note that their data cannot investigate the reasons for this change, and that only a time-trend analysis of data obtained from the same instruments can truly answer the question of what is the trend in prevalence rates.

• CHARACTERISTICS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUALLY HARASSING ENVIRONMENTS

Rigorous survey research has identified common characteristics of sexual harassment. This work pushes against some of the main assumptions made on what it is, as well as how sexual harassment affects the targets, the bystanders, and the atmosphere of work and education settings. Here the chapter describes some of the aspects of sexual harassment that are strongly supported by the literature. However, we note that the data on varying experiences of sexual harassment of women of color, sexual minorities, and gender minorities is sparse, so these characteristics are likely to reflect the experience of majority women.

Characteristics of Sexual Harassment

Women are more likely to be sexually harassed than men and to experience sexual harassment at higher frequencies ( USMSPB 1995 ; Magley, Hulin et al. 1999 ; Ilies et al. 2003 ; Kabat-Farr and Cortina 2014 ). The 2012 DMDC survey results shown in Table 2-2 demonstrate that across all three types of sexual harassment, female personnel, compared with their male counterparts, were more likely to have experienced at least one instance of sexually harassing conduct over the prior 12 months. Likewise, in the 1994 USMSPB study of federal workers, it found more women (44 percent) than men (19 percent) describing experiences of any of seven types of sexually harassing behavior in the past 2 years at work ( USMSPB 1995 ). In a more recent study using the SEQ, Rosenthal, Smidt, and Freyd (2016) surveyed 525 graduate students regarding their exposure to sexual harassment while in graduate school. Female students were 1.64 times more likely to have experienced sexually harassing behavior from faculty or staff (38 percent) compared with male students (23 percent). Though the occasional survey reports no significant gender difference (e.g., Konik and Cortina 2008 ) in a specific group, many studies have found women encountering more sexually harassing conduct than men encounter.

Rate of Active Duty Military Women and Men Experiencing Sexually Harassing Behaviors at Least Once in the Past 12 Months.

The overwhelming majority of sexual harassment involves some form of gender harassment (the put-downs of sexual harassment that include sexist hostility and crude behavior). Unwanted sexual attention is the next most common form of sexual harassment, and only a small minority of women experience sexual coercion. For instance, Schneider, Swan, and Fitzgerald (1997) analyzed data from two samples of women: factory workers and university faculty/staff. In both samples, gender harassment was by far the most common experience: 54–60 percent of women described some encounter with gender harassment, either with or without unwanted sexual attention. In contrast, sexual coercion was rare, described by approximately 4 percent of women in each sample. Moreover, sexual coercion never took place without unwanted sexual attention and gender harassment. When analyzing the sexual harassment of graduate students, Rosenthal, Smidt, and Freyd (2016) found that 59 percent of harassment incidents involved some form of gender harassment, while only 5 percent included unwanted touching, and less than 4 percent entailed sexual coercion. In another study, Leskinen, Cortina, and Kabat (2011) analyzed survey data from two samples of women who work in highly male-dominated sectors: the military and the law. Focusing only on data from women who had encountered at least one sexually harassing behavior in the prior year, they found that 9 of every 10 people who experienced sexual harassment had encountered gender harassment with little or no unwanted sexual attention or coercion. While a recent national survey of 615 working men found that of the 25 percent of male respondents that admitted they had done at least one sexually harassing behavior in the last year, the most common form was gender harassment and the least common was sexual coercion ( Patel, Griggs, and Miller 2017 ).

That gender harassment is the most common type of sexual harassment is an unexpected finding in terms of what constitutes sexual harassment because unwanted sexual advances and sexual coercion are the most commonly reported both in official Title IX/Human Resources documentation ( Cantalupo and Kidder 2017a , 2017b ) and in the media. 9 This is in part why the misguided idea that sexual harassment is about sex has persisted.

In the vast majority of incidents of sexual harassment of women, men are the perpetrators. For instance, in the 1994 USMSPB study, 93 percent of sexually harassed women reported their perpetrators to be male ( USMSPB 1995 ). The DMDC's 1995 study turned up remarkably similar results, with 92 percent of sexually harassed women describing male perpetrators ( Magley, Waldo et al. 1999 ). In Rosenthal, Smidt, and Freyd's (2016) study of the sexual harassment of graduate students, among those who had been sexually harassed by faculty/staff, 86 percent of women described their harassers as male. Even when men are the targets of sexually harassing conduct, more often than not the perpetrator is also male (see also Kabat-Farr and Cortina 2014 ; Magley, Waldo et al. 1999 ).

Women are frequently harassed by coworkers and other employees (for students, it is fellow peers); superiors are not the most common perpetrators 10 ( USMSPB 1995 , 2018; AAUW 2005 ; Schneider, Pryor, and Fitzgerald 2011 ; Rosenthal, Smidt, and Freyd 2016 ). For example, in Rosenthal, Smidt, and Freyd's (2016) study of graduate students, 38 percent of female participants self-reported that they had experienced sexual harassment from faculty or staff, while 58 percent described sexual harassment from other students. In a study by Huerta and colleagues (2006) , student targets of sexual harassment described the harassing experience that bothered them the most. Fully three-quarters of these targets indicated the perpetrator of this “most bothersome” incident to be a peer (fellow student), whereas only one-quarter had perpetrators who were higher-status individuals (staff, faculty, or administrators).

Targets of sexual harassment often face repeated sexually harassing behaviors rather than one single incident. Rosenthal, Smidt, and Freyd's 2016 study of graduate students, in which 38 percent of women had encountered sexual harassment from faculty/staff and 58 percent had faced sexual harassment from students, only a small fraction (one-third or less) of these women described their harassment experience as being limited to a single incident. This confirms earlier research using data from the 1987 USMSPB survey, in which researchers found that “75 percent of those experiencing sexual teasing and jokes reported that it was not a one-time occurrence, and 54 percent of those pressured for sexual favors reported that it had occurred more than once ( USMSPB 1988 ). For most women, the harassment lasted more than a week, and often as long as 6 months” ( Schneider, Swan, and Fitzgerald 1997 , 402).

Sexual Harassment Among Women of Color and Sexual- and Gender-Minority Women

What is known about women's experiences is that those who have multiple marginalities—for instance women of color and sexual- and gender-minority women—experience certain kinds of harassment at greater rates than other women (e.g., Buchanan, Settles, and Woods 2008 ; Clancy et al. 2017 ; Cortina 2004 ; Cortina et al. 1998 ; Konik and Cortina 2008 ; Rabelo and Cortina 2014 ). Additionally, the cultural context in which people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds operate, as well as when they are numerically less represented in a workplace, can have effects on how they experience sexual harassment ( Cortina et al. 2002 ; Welsh et al. 2006 ). Thus, there is a wide spectrum of vulnerabilities, experiences, and consequences for women of color and gender minorities who are sexually harassed in the workplace.

As a field of study and as an analytical lens, intersectionality provides a framework to make visible the mutually constitutive relationship among race, ethnicity, sexuality, class, and other social positions that affect targets' experiences of harassment ( Collins 2015 ). It is rooted in Black feminism and Critical Race Theory and also makes visible intersecting axes of oppression that contribute to power hierarchies within a social structure related to race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and class. Addressing the legacy of exclusions of black women, legal scholar Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw used the concept of intersectionality to highlight the intersection of race and gender discrimination and how treating them as exclusive, and not intertwined, rendered the discrimination and multiple marginalities faced by black women invisible to antidiscrimination law ( Crenshaw 1989 , 1991 ). More recently, Crenshaw described intersectionality as a work in progress to denote the movement in and broadening of its use across disciplines and to a wider range of social locations ( Carbado 2013 ; Crenshaw 2014 ).

Some scholars have applied an intersectional lens to examine the sexual harassment experiences of women of color, though research in this area is still very limited. It is important to prioritize the study of sexual harassment among noncisgender (cisgender means feeling aligned with the gender you were assigned at birth), nonstraight, nonwhite women when considering the impact of sexual harassment within an organization. Recent research that has begun to look at sexual harassment through the lens of intersectionality reveals how the experiences of women of color compare with that of white women, white men, and men of color. This research demonstrates that women of color and sexual- and gender-minority women sometimes experience sexual harassment differently from other populations. Women of color often experience sexual harassment as a manifestation of both gender and race discrimination ( Cortina et al. 2002 ; Murrell 1996 ), which combined can lead to higher rates of overall harassment ( Berdahl and Moore 2006 ; Woods, Buchanan, and Settles 2009 ).

The RTI International interviews 11 were able to glean complexities of intersectionality and sexually harassing behavior. Respondents noted that the issues of sexual- and gender-based harassment are often overpowered by how other issues such as race and sexual orientation intersect with their lived experience as women. These women noted an inability to disentangle discrimination and biases as stemming either from gender or their intersecting identities ( RTI 2018 ).

And then there's a lot of fairly overt transphobia in my institution, I think. And I don't really know what to make of it. But there's sort of . . . traditional old Southern set of gendered expectations and norms that if you don't fit them, it's pretty clear what people think, and they don't have to say a lot about it for you to know, you know what I mean? ( Nontenure-track faculty member in nursing ) What I've concluded is that [much] of my push towards and tenacity around equality and equity actually lands on race. I think part of that is because I've been more affronted by my race than my gender, at least more overtly. Meaning, I've had people say to my face I don't want to be taking care of that black person, oh, you speak articulate for a black person. These micro-aggressions that go out there and statements and these innuendos. ( Nontenure-track faculty member in medicine )

These studies demonstrate that an individual's identity can affect how sexual harassment is perpetrated.

Likewise, lesbian, gay, and bisexual women encounter forms of harassment that reflect a combination of sexism and heterosexism ( Konik and Cortina 2008 ; Rabelo and Cortina 2014 ). Nonbinary individuals, on the other hand, must negotiate their identities within the constructs of the gender binary that is still prevalent today ( Dietert and Dentice 2009 ). A study by Irwin (2002) examined workplace discrimination in the education sector in Australia among gay men, lesbians, and transgender individuals. Irwin found that greater than 60 percent of teachers, academics, and educators who identified as lesbian, gay, or transgender have experienced homophobic behavior and/or harassment, and have been discriminated against in the workplace. The study also found that 16 percent of the individuals who identified as lesbian, gay, or transgender have been sexually harassed, and one participant was sexually assaulted.

The research on sexual minorities has shown that this population experiences more sexual harassment than heterosexual individuals. In a study of 629 employees in higher education, nearly 76.9 percent of sexual minorities (of both genders) experienced gender harassment, whereas only 30 percent of heterosexuals (of both genders) experienced gender harassment ( Konik and Cortina 2008 ). This trend continued for the other forms of sexual harassment (unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion): 39.7 percent of sexual minorities experienced these types, whereas only 15.5 percent of heterosexuals experienced these types. In another study the prevalence and impact of heterosexist harassment, which is insensitive verbal and symbolic (but nonassaultive) behaviors that convey animosity toward nonheterosexuality, was examined among students. The study specifically looked at how experiences of this type of harassment affected sexual minorities and heterosexuals differently and found that sexual minorities were more likely to experience heterosexist harassment than heterosexuals (58 percent and 39 percent, respectively), and when sexual minorities experienced the harassment, they were equally likely to experience it directed at them as in an ambient form (53 percent and 47 percent, respectively) ( Silverschanz et al. 2008 ).

Characteristics of Sexually Harassing Environments

By far, the greatest predictors of the occurrence of sexual harassment are organizational. Individual-level factors (e.g., sexist attitudes, beliefs that rationalize or justify harassment, etc.) that might make someone decide to harass a work colleague, student, or peer are surely important. However, a person that has proclivities for sexual harassment will have those behaviors greatly inhibited when exposed to role models who behave in a professional way as compared with role models who behave in a harassing way, or when in an environment that does not support harassing behaviors and/or has strong consequences for these behaviors. Thus, this section considers some of the organizational and environmental variables that increase the risk of sexual harassment perpetration.

Women working in environments where men outnumber women, leadership is male-dominated, and/or jobs or occupations are considered atypical for women experience more frequent incidents of sexual harassment ( USMSPB 1995 ; Fitzgerald et al. 1997 ; Berdahl 2007b ; Willness, Steel, and Lee 2007 ; Schneider, Pryor, and Fitzgerald 2011 ). In particular, the more male-dominated the work environment, the more women experience the gender harassment form of sexual harassment. For example, in one study looking at the effect of workplace gender balance, the researchers analyzed data from women employees of the federal courts. When comparing women who work in gender-balanced workgroups (i.e., equal numbers of men and women in the workgroup) with those who work with almost all men, the researchers reported women in the latter category were 1.68 times more likely to encounter gender harassment ( Kabat-Farr and Cortina 2014 ).

The historical and cultural context of a work or education environment is of high relevance to the study of sexual harassment as well, since environments that are no longer male dominated in gender ratio may still be male dominated in their work practices, culture, or behavioral expectations.

The perceived absence of organizational sanctions increases the risk of sexual harassment perpetration. Perceptions of organizational tolerance for sexual harassment (also referred to as organizational climate for sexual harassment), are broken down into three categories: (1) the perceived risk to targets for complaining, (2) a perceived lack of sanctions against offenders, and (3) the perception that one's complaints will not be taken seriously ( Hulin, Fitzgerald, and Drasgow 1996 ). Research has shown that perceptions of an organization's tolerance for all three forms of sexually harassing behavior are significantly related to both direct and ambient sexual harassment. In environments that are perceived as more tolerant or permissive of sexual harassment, women are more likely to be directly harassed ( Fitzgerald et al. 1997 ; Williams, Fitzgerald, and Drasgow 1999 ) and to witness harassment of others ( Glomb et al. 1997 ). In fact, one meta-analysis that combined data from 41 studies with a total sample size of nearly 70,000 respondents found perception of organizational tolerance to be the most potent predictor of sexual harassment in work organizations ( Willness, Steel, and Lee 2007 ). In a recent national survey of 615 working men ( Patel, Griggs, and Miller 2017 ), sexually harassing behavior was more commonly reported “among men who say their company does not have guidelines against harassment, hotlines to report it or punishment for perpetrators, or who say their managers don't care.”

Social situations in which sexist views and sexually harassing behavior are modeled can enable, facilitate, or even encourage sexually harassing behaviors, while, conversely, positive role models can inhibit sexually harassing behavior ( Dekker and Barling 1998 ; Perry, Schmidtke, and Kulik 1998 ; Pryor, LaVite, and Stoller 1993 ). In one study, college men who had professed a willingness to sexually coerce were found to be more likely to sexually exploit a female trainee when they were exposed to an authority figure who acted in a sexually exploitive way ( Pryor, LaVite, and Stoller 1993 ). Hitlan and colleagues (2009) found that viewing a sexist film enhanced the tendency among the less sexist men to perform acts of gender harassment. In another experiment, men who viewed sexist TV clips were more likely to send women unsolicited sexist jokes and more likely to profess a willingness to engage in sexual coercion than men who watched programs portraying young, successful women in domains such as science, culture, and business ( Maass, Cadinu, and Galdi 2013 ). Conversely, experiments show that sexual harassment is less likely to occur if those behaviors are not accepted by authority figures ( Pryor, LaVite, and Stoller 1993 ). So, while social situations do not necessarily function as triggers for existing predilections to sexually harass, they can act as a force encouraging or discouraging men to sexually harass, demonstrating the power of practiced social norms (e.g., the social norms communicated by the actions of the people in an environment rather than their words or the words from official policy for an organization).

Other factors that research suggests increase the chances of sexual harassment perpetration are significant power differentials within hierarchical organizations and organizational tolerance of alcohol use. Hierarchical work environments like the military, where there is a large power differential between organizational levels and an expectation is not to question those higher up, tend to have higher rates of sexual harassment than organizations that have less power differential between the organizational levels, like the private sector and government ( Ilies et al. 2003 ; Schneider, Pryor, and Fitzgerald 2011 ). Environments that allow drinking during work breaks and have permissive norms related to drinking are positively associated with higher levels of gender harassment of women ( Bacharach, Bamberger, and McKinney 2007 ). Culturally, these are, again, patterns more common in currently or historically male-dominated workplaces.

• FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination that consists of three types of harassing behavior: (1) gender harassment (verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one gender); (2) unwanted sexual attention (unwelcome verbal or physical sexual advances, which can include assault); and (3) sexual coercion (when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditioned on sexual activity). The distinctions between the types of harassment are important, particularly because many people do not realize that gender harassment is a form of sexual harassment.

Sexually harassing behavior can be either direct (targeted at an individual) or ambient (a general level of sexual harassment in an environment) and is harmful in both cases. It is considered illegal when it creates a hostile environment (gender harassment or unwanted sexual attention that is “severe or pervasive” enough to alter the conditions of employment, interfere with one's work performance, or impede one's ability to get an education) or when it is quid pro quo sexual harassment (when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditioned on sexual activity).

There are reliable scientific methods for determining the prevalence of sexual harassment. To measure the incidence of sexual harassment, surveys should follow the best practices that have emerged from the science of sexual harassment. This includes use of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire, the most widely used and well-validated instrument available for measuring sexual harassment; assessment of specific behaviors without requiring the respondent to label the behaviors “sexual harassment”; focus on first-hand experience or observation of behavior (rather than rumor or hearsay); and focus on the recent past (1–2 years, to avoid problems of memory decay). Relying on the number of official reports of sexual harassment made to an organization is not an accurate method for determining the prevalence.

Some surveys underreport the incidence of sexual harassment because they have not followed standard and valid practices for survey research and sexual harassment research.

While properly conducted surveys are the best methods for estimating the prevalence of sexual harassment, other salient aspects of sexual harassment and its consequences can be examined using other research methods , such as behavioral laboratory experiments, interviews, case studies, ethnographies, and legal research. Such studies can provide information about the presence and nature of sexually harassing behavior in an organization, how it develops and continues (and influences the organizational climate), and how it attenuates or amplifies outcomes from sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment remains a persistent problem in the workplace at large. Across workplaces, five common characteristics emerge:

Women experience sexual harassment more often than men do.

Gender harassment (e.g., behaviors that communicate that women do not belong or do not merit respect) is by far the most common type of sexual harassment. When an environment is pervaded by gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion become more likely to occur—in part because unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion are almost never experienced by women without simultaneously experiencing gender harassment.

Men are more likely than women to commit sexual harassment.

Coworkers and peers more often commit sexual harassment than do superiors.

Sexually harassing behaviors are not typically isolated incidents; rather, they are a series or pattern of sometimes escalating incidents and behaviors.

Research that does not include the study of women of color and sexual- and gender-minority women presents an incomplete picture of women's experiences of sexual harassment. The preliminary research on the experiences of women of color, and sexual- and gender-minority women reveals that their experiences of sexual harassment can differ from the larger population of cisgender, straight, white women.

Women of color experience more harassment (sexual, racial/ethnic, or combination of the two) than white women, white men, and men of color do. Women of color often experience sexual harassment that includes racial harassment.

Sexual- and gender-minority people experience more sexual harassment than heterosexual women do.

The two characteristics of environments most associated with higher rates of sexual harassment are (a) male-dominated gender ratios and leadership and (b) an organizational climate that communicates tolerance of sexual harassment (e.g., leadership that fails to take complaints seriously, fails to sanction perpetrators, or fails to protect complainants from retaliation).

Organizational climate is, by far, the greatest predictor of the occurrence of sexual harassment, and ameliorating it can prevent people from sexually harassing others. A person more likely to engage in harassing behaviors is significantly less likely to do so in an environment that does not support harassing behaviors and/or has strong, clear, transparent consequences for these behaviors.

Barnes v. Costle , 561 F.2d 983, 987 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

Williams v. Saxbe , 413 F. Supp. 654 D.D.C. (1976).

Bundy v. Jackson , 641 F.2d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson , 477 U.S. 57 (1986).

The empirical record on sexual harassment goes back over 30 years, and important studies were conducted in that first decade. Members of this committee thought carefully about whether to cite “older” articles (e.g., from the 1980s). We opted to retain those references when, in our expert opinion, their methods were rigorous and their conclusions would still apply in today's world.

Nonprobability samples are samples that are not representative of the whole population and are often used when a defined population is not possible to specify or when it is not necessary to have a representative dataset to achieve the goals of the research. These samples can include convenience samples and snowball samples.

The 1980 survey used 6 forms of “unwanted, uninvited sexual harassment,” the 1987 survey used 7 (adding rape and sexual assault), the 1994 survey used 8 (adding rape and stalking), and the 2016 survey used 12 forms (adding gender harassment types). The original six categories remained consistent throughout the years.

After the 2012 survey, the military asked the RAND Corporation to conduct a new survey revising the methodology as needed. The result was a significant change in how sexual harassment was defined in the analysis, and thus the prevalence numbers cannot easily be compared with the previous series of surveys. Whereas previous surveys assessed the prevalence of sexually harassing behaviors, the RAND survey used behavior-based questions to determine the prevalence rate of legally defined sexual harassment, meaning that they asked questions and grouped results based on hostile work environment and quid pro quo harassment. While quid pro quo harassment maps cleanly to sexual coercion, hostile work environment requires the condition that the sexually harassing behaviors (such as gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention) be considered by the respondent to be pervasive or severe—essentially requiring a frequency or severity assessment that had not been previously used. With this much narrower definition of “what counts” as harassing behavior, the 2016 survey yielded a lower overall rate of sexual harassment for women over a 12-month time period: 21.4 percent ( RAND 2016 ).

See, for example, https://www ​.nytimes.com ​/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations ​.html?rref=collection ​%2Fbyline ​%2Fjodi-kantor ; https://www ​.nytimes.com ​/2017/10/10/us/gwyneth-paltrow-angelina-jolie-harvey-weinstein ​.html?rref=collection ​%2Fbyline%2Fjodi-kantor&action ​=click&contentCollection ​=undefined&region ​=stream&module ​=stream_unit&version ​=latest&contentPlacement ​=10&pgtype=collection ; https://www ​.buzzfeed ​.com/azeenghorayshi/geoff-marcy-at-sfsu?utm_term= ​.phP5anr0n#.kprpq6Gj6 ; https://www ​.buzzfeed ​.com/azeenghorayshi/ott-harassment-investigation?utm_term= ​.vi3ByvlNv#.wm83947r4 ; and https://www ​.reuters.com ​/article/us-foxnews-lawsuit ​/ex-fox-news-anchor-accuses-former-boss-ailes-of-sexual-harassment-idUSKCN0ZM21I .

One obvious factor that contributes to this difference is that there are most often more coworkers or peers than there are superiors.

This research was commissioned by the committee and the full report on this research is available in Appendix C .

• Cite this Page National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine; Committee on the Impacts of Sexual Harassment in Academia; Benya FF, Widnall SE, Johnson PA, editors. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2018 Jun 12. 2, Sexual Harassment Research.
• PDF version of this title (4.5M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health

Recent Activity

• Sexual Harassment Research - Sexual Harassment of Women Sexual Harassment Research - Sexual Harassment of Women

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Study: When Leaders Take Sexual Harassment Seriously, So Do Employees

• Chloe Hart,
• Alison Dahl Crossley,
• Shelley J. Correll

It’s on management to set the tone.

When it comes to the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace, employees demand leadership accountability. Research suggests what leaders should do: communicate to employees that sexual harassment is a high-priority issue within the company. A study found that the way leaders do this can indeed shape peoples’ attitudes toward sexual harassment — setting the tone around whether it is or isn’t tolerated. In an online experiment, researchers found that participants who read about a leader downplaying the issue within the company were less likely to rate sexual harassment a high-priority problem there; while those who read about a leader who took sexual harassment seriously were more likely to rate it a high-priority problem. This pattern held no matter the participants’ gender or political affiliation.

When it comes to the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace, employees demand leadership accountability. Consider the recent Google walkout , which employees staged to protest the lofty exit packages paid to men accused of misconduct. In response, Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, and Larry Page, chief executive of its parent company, Alphabet, apologized.

• CH Chloe Hart is a PhD candidate in sociology at Stanford University. Her research explores gender and sexuality in organizations from a social psychological perspective.
• AC Alison Dahl Crossley , PhD, is Associate Director of the Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University and author of the book Finding Feminism: Millennial Activists and the Unfinished Gender Revolution .
• SC Shelley J. Correll is the Michelle Mercer and Bruce Golden Family Professor of Women’s Leadership at Stanford University and Director of the Stanford VMware Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab.

Partner Center

What it really takes to stop sexual harassment

Psychologists call for a comprehensive approach with real-world impact

By Brendan L. Smith

February 2018, Vol 49, No. 2

Print version: page 36

11 min read

• Sexual Assault and Harassment

As the list of high-profile men accused of sexual harassment or assault grows, a cultural shift demanding increased accountability for workplace sexual harassment may be occurring in the public eye. But behind closed doors, many companies and institutions have done little to address sexual harassment, which has contributed to hostile work environments not only for victims of sexual harassment but also for other employees who are merely bystanders.

Sexual harassment is a pervasive problem with a devastating toll on employee well-being and performance, according to psychologists who study workplace harassment or provide consultation to companies on how to prevent it. There also is a dearth of research identifying which training programs may help reduce sexual harassment, while some ineffective training may even exacerbate the problem. Companies often still have a problematic knee-jerk reaction to sexual harassment complaints, says C. Brady Wilson, PhD, a psychologist in Scottsdale, Arizona, who specializes in sexual harassment and workplace trauma.

"There is a pattern to close ranks, admit nothing and blame the victim," Wilson says. "Some companies hate the EEOC and hate their own human resources department. They just see sexual harassment complaints as something that slows them down and as an unnecessary expense. There is such a reluctance to cooperate and participate."

In the 2015 fiscal year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received approximately 28,000 charges alleging harassment or discrimination from employees working for private employers or state or local governments. Almost half of those complaints were based on gender, exceeding race (34 percent) or disability (19 percent). The EEOC estimates that less than 14 percent of individuals experiencing harassment ever file a formal complaint.

Sixty percent of American women voters said they have experienced sexual harassment, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll. Almost 70 percent of the women who experienced harassment said it occurred at work, more than any other setting. And the poll found almost 90 percent of both male and female voters believe sexual harassment of women is a serious problem.

The current media spotlight on sexual harassment may motivate more companies to adopt sexual harassment training programs, but some efforts aren't successful in changing attitudes or reducing sexual harassment. Conducting a one-time training for new employees is ineffective and is usually just window dressing by companies seeking protection from lawsuits, says Columbia University psychology professor Elissa Perry, PhD, who has researched sexual harassment training programs.

"It's not just about providing one training and you're done. It's got to be a comprehensive approach," she says. "The tone is set at the top. Are they just checking a box? If they are only doing it for legal reasons, then they don't care if it works."

Decades of research has documented the extensive damage suffered by victims of sexual harassment, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, job turnover and post-traumatic stress.

Quick has researched sexual harassment for more than two decades and co-authored a recent article in APA's Journal of Occupational Health Psychology that examined advances in research and the changing dynamics of sexual harassment. More men now are reporting sexual harassment, and more research is needed in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities. In the Quinnipiac University national poll, one in five male voters reported that he had experienced sexual harassment. Women also can be aggressors against other women or men, although that is less common, Quick says.

The quest for effective training

While there has been little research evaluating the effectiveness of sexual harassment training programs, there are some best practices that have been identified. Employees should learn about company policies and laws relating to sexual harassment, procedures for filing complaints, and expectations of behavior for all employees, says Chris Kilmartin, PhD, a psychologist and emeritus psychology professor at the University of Mary Washington.

Bystander intervention training also may help increase a sense of accountability, where employees are expected to speak up and even file their own complaints when they witness sexual harassment involving another employee. A toxic work environment can lower productivity and increase turnover and absenteeism, with employees less engaged in their work.

"A hostile environment affects the whole organization, not just the people who are harassed," Kilmartin says. "Basically, it poisons the organization."

Kilmartin has served as a sexual harassment training consultant for many organizations and the armed forces, including the U.S. Army, Air Force and Naval Academy. Training can be engaging, with real-life scenarios, rather than forcing employees to watch a dated video with stilted vignettes. Kilmartin used his chops as a stand-up comedian to incorporate humor into a sexual harassment training video he wrote for the Army. In the video, a clueless soldier is dressed down by a sergeant for telling sexist jokes.

Companies should use sexual harassment training programs that include pre-training, training and post-training components at the individual and group levels, Perry says. An anonymous employee survey or audit of the workplace before the training can be useful in identifying the extent of sexual harassment. The training should be interactive, with multiple training methods, including lectures, videos and role-playing. Follow-up after the initial training should include knowledge assessment tests and annual refresher training courses.

A successful training program might result in an increase in sexual harassment complaints in the short term as more employees feel empowered to report misconduct, but an elevated level of complaints for an extended period may indicate the training hasn't helped, Perry says.

Some ineffective training programs may even backfire and increase negative views or stereotypes, according to research. A study of a 30-minute training found that men who completed the program were more likely to say that sexual behavior at work was wrong, but they also were more likely to believe that both parties contribute to inappropriate sexual behavior. They also were less likely to view coercion of a subordinate as sexual harassment than were men or women who didn't take the training.

The role of workplace culture

Some common risk factors for sexual harassment include workplaces with a strict hierarchical power dynamic where men outnumber women and most supervisors are male. Hiring more women in leadership positions and creating a civil, respectful culture for all employees can help curb the problem, Kilmartin says.

The Defense Department has instituted a comprehensive training strategy to reduce sexual assault and harassment, including an anonymous help line, surveys of armed forces members, focus groups and procedures for reducing retaliation against victims.

In both the military and civilian worlds, sexual harassment complaints are sometimes dismissed as a "he said, she said" situation, says Quick, who co-wrote a forthcoming book on campus sexual assault. Companies need to have clear policies that sexual harassment won't be tolerated and that perpetrators will be punished, but the process needs to be fair to all parties. "You can't use a sledgehammer. Some people do some things unintentionally," Quick says. "You have to look at intentions and actions. It's a deliberative process you have to go through."

A harsh zero-tolerance policy toward sexual harassment also can backfire, where alleged perpetrators don't feel the process is fair and victims fear making a complaint because they may not want the perpetrator to be fired, Quick says. "Everyone potentially has a defense, so you have to listen to both sides of the conflict," he says.

More research is needed to identify personality traits that may contribute to sexual harassment. One study published last year in Personality and Individual Differences found a positive association between sexual harassment proclivity and the "dark triad" personality traits (narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism). While some people view sexist jokes as harmless, another study published in 2015 in the International Journal of Humor Research found that telling sexist jokes was associated with self-reported rape proclivity and blaming of victims.

The fate of harassment targets

One worrying trend is the increase in companies buying liability insurance to defend against sexual harassment lawsuits, because companies may treat sexual harassment as a cost of doing business rather than addressing it, Wilson says. "The fact is it's going to cost the company more to do the training and compliance than buying insurance. That's a hard reality," he says.

Wilson has trained EEOC staff about the differing ways that targets may respond to sexual harassment. Some women may try to avoid an aggressor or make weak pleadings for him to stop. They may downplay the misconduct and endure it for a long time before ultimately filing a complaint. Companies then may use those delays as ammunition against victims to question why they didn't file a complaint sooner or allege that the victims didn't really object to the inappropriate behavior, Wilson says. More than 70 percent of EEOC sexual harassment charges filed during the last two fiscal years included charges of retaliation, according to unpublished EEOC data obtained by the Center for American Progress.

Targets who face retaliation usually aren't fired outright, but their lives in the workplace are made so difficult that they eventually quit, says Wilson, a former president of the Arizona Psychological Association. He had one client whose desk was moved into a hallway outside her office and who had her computer and phone taken away after she filed a sexual harassment complaint.

That retaliation doesn't go unnoticed, and fellow workers often distance themselves from the target rather than helping. "Rarely do people stand up for them," Wilson says. "They don't want to get caught in that web or suffer retaliation themselves."

Bystander intervention training can help reverse that trend by training employees to be responsible for maintaining a safe office environment, even if it means getting involved in a situation they would rather avoid, Wilson says.

On another front, some large companies are compelling their suppliers to take action on sexual harassment, which can be a powerful tool because it affects those businesses' bottom line. McDonald's, Walmart, Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Burger King and other companies have begun buying fruits and vegetables only from growers who abide by a human rights code of conduct to protect farmworkers called the Fair Food Program , which was developed by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers in Florida.

While high-profile men in politics, entertainment and the media are dominating the news coverage over allegations of sexual harassment, industries with large numbers of female low-wage workers have much higher rates of sexual harassment that go unnoticed with little public outcry. From 2005 to 2015, more than 41,000 charges of sexual harassment were filed with the EEOC, with the hotel and food industries recording the most charges (14 percent), followed closely by the retail industry (13 percent). The media and entertainment industries each accounted for less than 3 percent of sexual harassment complaints.

Shifts in cultural attitudes toward sexual harassment may ultimately be the most valuable tool in combating sexual harassment by creating a shared sense of public responsibility and accountability. The #MeToo social media messages that went viral after the Harvey Weinstein sex scandal illustrated in stark detail how many women have experienced sexual harassment. Kilmartin says he had male friends on Facebook who acknowledged they had previously engaged in sexual harassment, but they promised to stop after reading the heartrending accounts that women shared publicly, often for the first time.

"It was powerful and personalized the issue that it's not just something that happens in an evil Hollywood back room," Kilmartin says. "It helps sensitize men to the stories of people they know so it wasn't just an abstraction."

Greater public awareness of sexual harassment and more proactive involvement by companies and other institutions hopefully will reduce the prevalence of sexual harassment and the devastation it causes, Quick says.

"It's not just a woman's problem. Women continue to be the primary victims of sexual harassment, and they are carrying the burden of suffering," he says. "Until males own their responsibility in the problem, it's going to be really tough to get a big movement in addressing it."

This article originally appeared in Good Company , a newsletter from APA's Center for Organizational Excellence, which works to enhance the functioning of individuals, groups, organizations and communities through the application of psychology to a broad range of workplace issues..

Have we made any progress?

James Campbell Quick, PhD, and M. Ann McFadyen, PhD, seek to answer that question in the July issue of APA's Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (Vol. 22, No. 3, 2017). Their article reviews the literature on sexual harassment and finds that while sexual harassment complaints have decreased by 28 percent since 1998, complaints by males have increased, and merit resolutions and monetary benefits have increased. The authors also point out that one persistent problem related to sexual harassment is a lack of agreement on its definition. dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000054

APA's Center for Organizational Excellence Resources on preventing and addressing workplace sexual harassment, including statistics, reports, trainings, book recommendations and more, can be found at apaexcellence.org/sexual-harassment .

Letters to the Editor

• Send us a letter

Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018)

Chapter: 7 findings, conclusions, and recommendations, 7 findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

Preventing and effectively addressing sexual harassment of women in colleges and universities is a significant challenge, but we are optimistic that academic institutions can meet that challenge—if they demonstrate the will to do so. This is because the research shows what will work to prevent sexual harassment and why it will work. A systemwide change to the culture and climate in our nation’s colleges and universities can stop the pattern of harassing behavior from impacting the next generation of women entering science, engineering, and medicine.

Changing the current culture and climate requires addressing all forms of sexual harassment, not just the most egregious cases; moving beyond legal compliance; supporting targets when they come forward; improving transparency and accountability; diffusing the power structure between faculty and trainees; and revising organizational systems and structures to value diversity, inclusion, and respect. Leaders at every level within academia will be needed to initiate these changes and to establish and maintain the culture and norms. However, to succeed in making these changes, all members of our nation’s college campuses—students, faculty, staff, and administrators—will need to assume responsibility for promoting a civil and respectful environment. It is everyone’s responsibility to stop sexual harassment.

In this spirit of optimism, we offer the following compilation of the report’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Chapter 2: sexual harassment research.

• Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination that consists of three types of harassing behavior: (1) gender harassment (verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one gender); (2) unwanted sexual attention (unwelcome verbal or physical sexual advances, which can include assault); and (3) sexual coercion (when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditioned on sexual activity). The distinctions between the types of harassment are important, particularly because many people do not realize that gender harassment is a form of sexual harassment.
• Sexually harassing behavior can be either direct (targeted at an individual) or ambient (a general level of sexual harassment in an environment) and is harmful in both cases. It is considered illegal when it creates a hostile environment (gender harassment or unwanted sexual attention that is “severe or pervasive” enough to alter the conditions of employment, interfere with one’s work performance, or impede one’s ability to get an education) or when it is quid pro quo sexual harassment (when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditioned on sexual activity).
• There are reliable scientific methods for determining the prevalence of sexual harassment. To measure the incidence of sexual harassment, surveys should follow the best practices that have emerged from the science of sexual harassment. This includes use of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire, the most widely used and well-validated instrument available for measuring sexual harassment; assessment of specific behaviors without requiring the respondent to label the behaviors “sexual harassment”; focus on first-hand experience or observation of behavior (rather than rumor or hearsay); and focus on the recent past (1–2 years, to avoid problems of memory decay). Relying on the number of official reports of sexual harassment made to an organization is not an accurate method for determining the prevalence.
• Some surveys underreport the incidence of sexual harassment because they have not followed standard and valid practices for survey research and sexual harassment research.
• While properly conducted surveys are the best methods for estimating the prevalence of sexual harassment, other salient aspects of sexual harassment and its consequences can be examined using other research methods , such as behavioral laboratory experiments, interviews, case studies, ethnographies, and legal research. Such studies can provide information about the presence and nature of sexually harassing behavior in an organization, how it develops and continues (and influences the organizational climate), and how it attenuates or amplifies outcomes from sexual harassment.
• Women experience sexual harassment more often than men do.
• Gender harassment (e.g., behaviors that communicate that women do not belong or do not merit respect) is by far the most common type of sexual harassment. When an environment is pervaded by gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion become more likely to occur—in part because unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion are almost never experienced by women without simultaneously experiencing gender harassment.
• Men are more likely than women to commit sexual harassment.
• Coworkers and peers more often commit sexual harassment than do superiors.
• Sexually harassing behaviors are not typically isolated incidents; rather, they are a series or pattern of sometimes escalating incidents and behaviors.
• Women of color experience more harassment (sexual, racial/ethnic, or combination of the two) than white women, white men, and men of color do. Women of color often experience sexual harassment that includes racial harassment.
• Sexual- and gender-minority people experience more sexual harassment than heterosexual women do.
• The two characteristics of environments most associated with higher rates of sexual harassment are (a) male-dominated gender ratios and leadership and (b) an organizational climate that communicates tolerance of sexual harassment (e.g., leadership that fails to take complaints seriously, fails to sanction perpetrators, or fails to protect complainants from retaliation).
• Organizational climate is, by far, the greatest predictor of the occurrence of sexual harassment, and ameliorating it can prevent people from sexually harassing others. A person more likely to engage in harassing behaviors is significantly less likely to do so in an environment that does not support harassing behaviors and/or has strong, clear, transparent consequences for these behaviors.

Chapter 3: Sexual Harassment in Academic Science, Engineering, and Medicine

• Male-dominated environment , with men in positions of power and authority.
• Organizational tolerance for sexually harassing behavior (e.g., failing to take complaints seriously, failing to sanction perpetrators, or failing to protect complainants from retaliation).
• Hierarchical and dependent relationships between faculty and their trainees (e.g., students, postdoctoral fellows, residents).
• Isolating environments (e.g., labs, field sites, and hospitals) in which faculty and trainees spend considerable time.
• Greater than 50 percent of women faculty and staff and 20–50 percent of women students encounter or experience sexually harassing conduct in academia.
• Women students in academic medicine experience more frequent gender harassment perpetrated by faculty/staff than women students in science and engineering.
• Women students/trainees encounter or experience sexual harassment perpetrated by faculty/staff and also by other students/trainees.
• Women faculty encounter or experience sexual harassment perpetrated by other faculty/staff and also by students/trainees.
• Women students, trainees, and faculty in academic medical centers experience sexual harassment by patients and patients’ families in addition to the harassment they experience from colleagues and those in leadership positions.

Chapter 4: Outcomes of Sexual Harassment

• When women experience sexual harassment in the workplace, the professional outcomes include declines in job satisfaction; withdrawal from their organization (i.e., distancing themselves from the work either physically or mentally without actually quitting, having thoughts or

intentions of leaving their job, and actually leaving their job); declines in organizational commitment (i.e., feeling disillusioned or angry with the organization); increases in job stress; and declines in productivity or performance.

• When students experience sexual harassment, the educational outcomes include declines in motivation to attend class, greater truancy, dropping classes, paying less attention in class, receiving lower grades, changing advisors, changing majors, and transferring to another educational institution, or dropping out.
• Gender harassment has adverse effects. Gender harassment that is severe or occurs frequently over a period of time can result in the same level of negative professional and psychological outcomes as isolated instances of sexual coercion. Gender harassment, often considered a “lesser,” more inconsequential form of sexual harassment, cannot be dismissed when present in an organization.
• The greater the frequency, intensity, and duration of sexually harassing behaviors, the more women report symptoms of depression, stress, and anxiety, and generally negative effects on psychological well-being.
• The more women are sexually harassed in an environment, the more they think about leaving, and end up leaving as a result of the sexual harassment.
• The more power a perpetrator has over the target, the greater the impacts and negative consequences experienced by the target.
• For women of color, preliminary research shows that when the sexual harassment occurs simultaneously with other types of harassment (i.e., racial harassment), the experiences can have more severe consequences for them.
• Sexual harassment has adverse effects that affect not only the targets of harassment but also bystanders, coworkers, workgroups, and entire organizations.
• Women cope with sexual harassment in a variety of ways, most often by ignoring or appeasing the harasser and seeking social support.
• The least common response for women is to formally report the sexually harassing experience. For many, this is due to an accurate perception that they may experience retaliation or other negative outcomes associated with their personal and professional lives.
• The dependence on advisors and mentors for career advancement.
• The system of meritocracy that does not account for the declines in productivity and morale as a result of sexual harassment.
• The “macho” culture in some fields.
• The informal communication network , in which rumors and accusations are spread within and across specialized programs and fields.
• The cumulative effect of sexual harassment is significant damage to research integrity and a costly loss of talent in academic science, engineering, and medicine. Women faculty in science, engineering, and medicine who experience sexual harassment report three common professional outcomes: stepping down from leadership opportunities to avoid the perpetrator, leaving their institution, and leaving their field altogether.

Chapter 5: Existing Legal and Policy Mechanisms for Addressing Sexual Harassment

• An overly legalistic approach to the problem of sexual harassment is likely to misjudge the true nature and scope of the problem. Sexual harassment law and policy development has focused narrowly on the sexualized and coercive forms of sexual harassment, not on the gender harassment type that research has identified as much more prevalent and at times equally harmful.
• Much of the sexual harassment that women experience and that damages women and their careers in science, engineering, and medicine does not meet the legal criteria of illegal discrimination under current law.
• Private entities, such as companies and private universities, are legally allowed to keep their internal policies and procedures—and their research on those policies and procedures—confidential, thereby limiting the research that can be done on effective policies for preventing and handling sexual harassment.
• Various legal policies, and the interpretation of such policies, enable academic institutions to maintain secrecy and/or confidentiality regarding outcomes of sexual harassment investigations, arbitration, and settlement agreements. Colleagues may also hesitate to warn one another about sexual harassment concerns in the hiring or promotion context out of fear of legal repercussions (i.e., being sued for defamation and/or discrimination). This lack of transparency in the adjudication process within organizations can cover up sexual harassment perpetrated by repeat or serial harassers. This creates additional barriers to researchers

and others studying harassment claims and outcomes, and is also a barrier to determining the effectiveness of policies and procedures.

• Title IX, Title VII, and case law reflect the inaccurate assumption that a target of sexual harassment will promptly report the harassment without worrying about retaliation. Effectively addressing sexual harassment through the law, institutional policies or procedures, or cultural change requires taking into account that targets of sexual harassment are unlikely to report harassment and often face retaliation for reporting (despite this being illegal).
• Fears of legal liability may prevent institutions from being willing to effectively evaluate training for its measurable impact on reducing harassment. Educating employees via sexual harassment training is commonly implemented as a central component of demonstrating to courts that institutions have “exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior.” However, research has not demonstrated that such training prevents sexual harassment. Thus, if institutions evaluated their training programs, they would likely find them to be ineffective, which, in turn, could raise fears within institutions of their risk for liability because they would then knowingly not be exercising reasonable care.
• Holding individuals and institutions responsible for sexual harassment and demonstrating that sexual harassment is a serious issue requires U.S. federal funding agencies to be aware when principal investigators, co-principal investigators, and grant personnel have violated sexual harassment policies. It is unclear whether and how federal agencies will take action beyond the requirements of Title IX and Title VII to ensure that federal grants, composed of taxpayers’ dollars, are not supporting research, academic institutions, or programs in which sexual harassment is ongoing and not being addressed. Federal science agencies usually indicate (e.g., in requests for proposals or other announcements) that they have a “no-tolerance” policy for sexual harassment. In general, federal agencies rely on the grantee institutions to investigate and follow through on Title IX violations. By not assessing and addressing the role of institutions and professional organizations in enabling individual sexual harassers, federal agencies may be perpetuating the problem of sexual harassment.
• To address the effect sexual harassment has on the integrity of research, parts of the federal government and several professional societies are beginning to focus more broadly on policies about research integrity and on codes of ethics rather than on the narrow definition of research misconduct. A powerful incentive for change may be missed if sexual harassment is not considered equally important as research misconduct, in terms of its effect on the integrity of research.

Chapter 6: Changing the Culture and Climate in Higher Education

• A systemwide change to the culture and climate in higher education is required to prevent and effectively address all three forms of sexual harassment. Despite significant attention in recent years, there is no evidence to suggest that current policies, procedures, and approaches have resulted in a significant reduction in sexual harassment. It is time to consider approaches that address the systems, cultures, and climates that enable sexual harassment to perpetuate.
• Strong and effective leaders at all levels in the organization are required to make the systemwide changes to climate and culture in higher education. The leadership of the organization—at every level—plays a significant role in establishing and maintaining an organization’s culture and norms. However, leaders in academic institutions rarely have leadership training to thoughtfully address culture and climate issues, and the leadership training that exists is often of poor quality.
• Evidence-based, effective intervention strategies are available for enhancing gender diversity in hiring practices.
• Focusing evaluation and reward structures on cooperation and collegiality rather than solely on individual-level teaching and research performance metrics could have a significant impact on improving the environment in academia.
• Evidence-based, effective intervention strategies are available for raising levels of interpersonal civility and respect in workgroups and teams.
• An organization that is committed to improving organizational climate must address issues of bias in academia. Training to reduce personal bias can cause larger-scale changes in departmental behaviors in an academic setting.
• Skills-based training that centers on bystander intervention promotes a culture of support, not one of silence. By calling out negative behaviors on the spot, all members of an academic community are helping to create a culture where abusive behavior is seen as an aberration, not as the norm.
• Reducing hierarchical power structures and diffusing power more broadly among faculty and trainees can reduce the risk of sexual ha

rassment. Departments and institutions could take the following approaches for diffusing power:

• Make use of egalitarian leadership styles that recognize that people at all levels of experience and expertise have important insights to offer.
• Adopt mentoring networks or committee-based advising that allows for a diversity of potential pathways for advice, funding, support, and informal reporting of harassment.
• Develop ways the research funding can be provided to the trainee rather than just the principal investigator.
• Take on the responsibility for preserving the potential work of the research team and trainees by redistributing the funding if a principal investigator cannot continue the work because he/she has created a climate that fosters sexual harassment and guaranteeing funding to trainees if the institution or a funder pulls funding from the principal investigator because of sexual harassment.
• Orienting students, trainees, faculty, and staff, at all levels, to the academic institution’s culture and its policies and procedures for handling sexual harassment can be an important piece of establishing a climate that demonstrates sexual harassment is not tolerated and targets will be supported.
• Institutions could build systems of response that empower targets by providing alternative and less formal means of accessing support services, recording information, and reporting incidents without fear of retaliation.
• Supporting student targets also includes helping them to manage their education and training over the long term.
• Confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements isolate sexual harassment targets by limiting their ability to speak with others about their experiences and can serve to shield perpetrators who have harassed people repeatedly.
• Key components of clear anti-harassment policies are that they are quickly and easily digested (i.e., using one-page flyers or infographics and not in legally dense language) and that they clearly state that people will be held accountable for violating the policy.
• A range of progressive/escalating disciplinary consequences (such as counseling, changes in work responsibilities, reductions in pay/benefits, and suspension or dismissal) that corresponds to the severity and frequency of the misconduct has the potential of correcting behavior before it escalates and without significantly disrupting an academic program.
• In an effort to change behavior and improve the climate, it may also be appropriate for institutions to undertake some rehabilitation-focused measures, even though these may not be sanctions per se.
• For the people in an institution to understand that the institution does not tolerate sexual harassment, it must show that it does investigate and then hold perpetrators accountable in a reasonable timeframe. Institutions can anonymize the basic information and provide regular reports that convey how many reports are being investigated and what the outcomes are from the investigation.
• An approach for improving transparency and demonstrating that the institution takes sexual harassment seriously is to encourage internal review of its policies, procedures, and interventions for addressing sexual harassment, and to have interactive dialogues with members of their campus community (especially expert researchers on these topics) around ways to improve the culture and climate and change behavior.
• Cater training to specific populations; in academia this would include students, postdoctoral fellows, staff, faculty, and those in leadership.
• Attend to the institutional motivation for training , which can impact the effectiveness of the training; for instance, compliance-based approaches have limited positive impact.
• Conduct training using live qualified trainers and offer trainees specific examples of inappropriate conduct. We note that a great deal of sexual harassment training today is offered via an online mini-course or the viewing of a short video.
• Describe standards of behavior clearly and accessibly (e.g., avoiding legal and technical terms).
• To the extent that the training literature provides broad guidelines for creating impactful training that can change climate and behavior, they include the following:
• Establish standards of behavior rather than solely seek to influence attitudes and beliefs. Clear communication of behavioral expectations, and teaching of behavioral skills, is essential.
• Conduct training in adherence to best standards , including appropriate pre-training needs assessment and evaluation of its effectiveness.
• Creating a climate that prevents sexual harassment requires measuring the climate in relation to sexual harassment, diversity, and respect, and assessing progress in reducing sexual harassment.
• Efforts to incentivize systemwide changes, such as Athena SWAN, 1 are crucial to motivating organizations and departments within organizations to make the necessary changes.
• Enacting new codes of conduct and new rules related specifically to conference attendance.
• Including sexual harassment in codes of ethics and investigating reports of sexual harassment. (This is a new responsibility for professional societies, and these organizations are considering how to take into consideration the law, home institutions, due process, and careful reporting when dealing with reports of sexual harassment.)
• Requiring members to acknowledge, in writing, the professional society’s rules and codes of conduct relating to sexual harassment during conference registration and during membership sign-up and renewal.
• Supporting and designing programs that prevent harassment and provide skills to intervene when someone is being harassed.
• Strengthening statements on sexual harassment, bullying, and discrimination in professional societies’ codes of conduct, with a few defining it as research misconduct.
• Factoring in harassment-related professional misconduct into scientific award decisions.
• Professional societies have the potential to be powerful drivers of change through their capacity to help educate, train, codify, and reinforce cultural expectations for their respective scientific, engineering, and medical communities. Some professional societies have taken action to prevent and respond to sexual harassment among their membership. Although each professional society has taken a slightly different approach to addressing sexual harassment, there are some shared approaches, including the following:

___________________

1 Athena SWAN (Scientific Women’s Academic Network). See https://www.ecu.ac.uk/equalitycharters/athena-swan/ .

• There are many promising approaches to changing the culture and climate in academia; however, further research assessing the effects and values of the following approaches is needed to identify best practices:
• Policies, procedures, trainings, and interventions, specifically how they prevent and stop sexually harassing behavior, alter perception of organizational tolerance for sexually harassing behavior, and reduce the negative consequences from reporting the incidents. This includes informal and formal reporting mechanisms, bystander intervention training, academic leadership training, sexual harassment training, interventions to improve civility, mandatory reporting requirements, and approaches to supporting and improving communication with the target.
• Mechanisms for target-led resolution options and mechanisms by which the target has a role in deciding what happens to the perpetrator, including restorative justice practices.
• Mechanisms for protecting targets from retaliation.
• Rehabilitation-focused measures for disciplining perpetrators.
• Incentive systems for encouraging leaders in higher education to address the issues of sexual harassment on campus.

RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION 1: Create diverse, inclusive, and respectful environments.

• Academic institutions and their leaders should take explicit steps to achieve greater gender and racial equity in hiring and promotions, and thus improve the representation of women at every level.
• Academic institutions and their leaders should take steps to foster greater cooperation, respectful work behavior, and professionalism at the faculty, staff, and student/trainee levels, and should evaluate faculty and staff on these criteria in hiring and promotion.
• Academic institutions should combine anti-harassment efforts with civility-promotion programs.
• Academic institutions should cater their training to specific populations (in academia these should include students/trainees, staff, faculty, and those in leadership) and should follow best practices in designing training programs. Training should be viewed as the means of providing the skills needed by all members of the academic community, each of whom has a role to play in building a positive organizational climate focused on safety and respect, and not simply as a method of ensuring compliance with laws.
• Academic institutions should utilize training approaches that develop skills among participants to interrupt and intervene when inappropriate behavior occurs. These training programs should be evaluated to deter

mine whether they are effective and what aspects of the training are most important to changing culture.

• Anti–sexual harassment training programs should focus on changing behavior, not on changing beliefs. Programs should focus on clearly communicating behavioral expectations, specifying consequences for failing to meet these expectations, and identifying the mechanisms to be utilized when these expectations are not met. Training programs should not be based on the avoidance of legal liability.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Address the most common form of sexual harassment: gender harassment.

Leaders in academic institutions and research and training sites should pay increased attention to and enact policies that cover gender harassment as a means of addressing the most common form of sexual harassment and of preventing other types of sexually harassing behavior.

RECOMMENDATION 3: Move beyond legal compliance to address culture and climate.

Academic institutions, research and training sites, and federal agencies should move beyond interventions or policies that represent basic legal compliance and that rely solely on formal reports made by targets. Sexual harassment needs to be addressed as a significant culture and climate issue that requires institutional leaders to engage with and listen to students and other campus community members.

RECOMMENDATION 4: Improve transparency and accountability.

• Academic institutions need to develop—and readily share—clear, accessible, and consistent policies on sexual harassment and standards of behavior. They should include a range of clearly stated, appropriate, and escalating disciplinary consequences for perpetrators found to have violated sexual harassment policy and/or law. The disciplinary actions taken should correspond to the severity and frequency of the harassment. The disciplinary actions should not be something that is often considered a benefit for faculty, such as a reduction in teaching load or time away from campus service responsibilities. Decisions regarding disciplinary actions, if indicated or required, should be made in a fair and timely way following an investigative process that is fair to all sides. 2
• Academic institutions should be as transparent as possible about how they are handling reports of sexual harassment. This requires balancing issues of confidentiality with issues of transparency. Annual reports,

2 Further detail on processes and guidance for how to fairly and appropriately investigate and adjudicate these issues are not provided because they are complex issues that were beyond the scope of this study.

that provide information on (1) how many and what type of policy violations have been reported (both informally and formally), (2) how many reports are currently under investigation, and (3) how many have been adjudicated, along with general descriptions of any disciplinary actions taken, should be shared with the entire academic community: students, trainees, faculty, administrators, staff, alumni, and funders. At the very least, the results of the investigation and any disciplinary action should be shared with the target(s) and/or the person(s) who reported the behavior.

• Academic institutions should be accountable for the climate within their organization. In particular, they should utilize climate surveys to further investigate and address systemic sexual harassment, particularly when surveys indicate specific schools or facilities have high rates of harassment or chronically fail to reduce rates of sexual harassment.
• Academic institutions should consider sexual harassment equally important as research misconduct in terms of its effect on the integrity of research. They should increase collaboration among offices that oversee the integrity of research (i.e., those that cover ethics, research misconduct, diversity, and harassment issues); centralize resources, information, and expertise; provide more resources for handling complaints and working with targets; and implement sanctions on researchers found guilty of sexual harassment.

RECOMMENDATION 5: Diffuse the hierarchical and dependent relationship between trainees and faculty.

Academic institutions should consider power-diffusion mechanisms (i.e., mentoring networks or committee-based advising and departmental funding rather than funding only from a principal investigator) to reduce the risk of sexual harassment.

RECOMMENDATION 6: Provide support for the target.

Academic institutions should convey that reporting sexual harassment is an honorable and courageous action. Regardless of a target filing a formal report, academic institutions should provide means of accessing support services (social services, health care, legal, career/professional). They should provide alternative and less formal means of recording information about the experience and reporting the experience if the target is not comfortable filing a formal report. Academic institutions should develop approaches to prevent the target from experiencing or fearing retaliation in academic settings.

RECOMMENDATION 7: Strive for strong and diverse leadership.

• College and university presidents, provosts, deans, department chairs, and program directors must make the reduction and prevention of sexual

harassment an explicit goal of their tenure. They should publicly state that the reduction and prevention of sexual harassment will be among their highest priorities, and they should engage students, faculty, and staff (and, where appropriate, the local community) in their efforts.

• Academic institutions should support and facilitate leaders at every level (university, school/college, department, lab) in developing skills in leadership, conflict resolution, mediation, negotiation, and de-escalation, and should ensure a clear understanding of policies and procedures for handling sexual harassment issues. Additionally, these skills development programs should be customized to each level of leadership.
• Leadership training programs for those in academia should include training on how to recognize and handle sexual harassment issues, and how to take explicit steps to create a culture and climate to reduce and prevent sexual harassment—and not just protect the institution against liability.

RECOMMENDATION 8: Measure progress.

Academic institutions should work with researchers to evaluate and assess their efforts to create a more diverse, inclusive, and respectful environment, and to create effective policies, procedures, and training programs. They should not rely on formal reports by targets for an understanding of sexual harassment on their campus.

• When organizations study sexual harassment, they should follow the valid methodologies established by social science research on sexual harassment and should consult subject-matter experts. Surveys that attempt to ascertain the prevalence and types of harassment experienced by individuals should adopt the following practices: ensure confidentiality, use validated behavioral instruments such as the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire, and avoid specifically using the term “sexual harassment” in any survey or questionnaire.
• Academic institutions should also conduct more wide-ranging assessments using measures in addition to campus climate surveys, for example, ethnography, focus groups, and exit interviews. These methods are especially important in smaller organizational units where surveys, which require more participants to yield meaningful data, might not be useful.
• Organizations studying sexual harassment in their environments should take into consideration the particular experiences of people of color and sexual- and gender-minority people, and they should utilize methods that allow them to disaggregate their data by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity to reveal the different experiences across populations.
• The results of climate surveys should be shared publicly to encourage transparency and accountability and to demonstrate to the campus community that the institution takes the issue seriously. One option would be for academic institutions to collaborate in developing a central repository for reporting their climate data, which could also improve the ability for research to be conducted on the effectiveness of institutional approaches.
• Federal agencies and foundations should commit resources to develop a tool similar to ARC3, the Administrator-Researcher Campus Climate Collaborative, to understand and track the climate for faculty, staff, and postdoctoral fellows.

RECOMMENDATION 9: Incentivize change.

• Academic institutions should work to apply for awards from the emerging STEM Equity Achievement (SEA Change) program. 3 Federal agencies and private foundations should encourage and support academic institutions working to achieve SEA Change awards.
• Accreditation bodies should consider efforts to create diverse, inclusive, and respectful environments when evaluating institutions or departments.
• Federal agencies should incentivize efforts to reduce sexual harassment in academia by requiring evaluations of the research environment, funding research and evaluation of training for students and faculty (including bystander intervention), supporting the development and evaluation of leadership training for faculty, and funding research on effective policies and procedures.

RECOMMENDATION 10: Encourage involvement of professional societies and other organizations.

• Professional societies should accelerate their efforts to be viewed as organizations that are helping to create culture changes that reduce or prevent the occurrence of sexual harassment. They should provide support and guidance for members who have been targets of sexual harassment. They should use their influence to address sexual harassment in the scientific, medical, and engineering communities they represent and promote a professional culture of civility and respect. The efforts of the American Geophysical Union are especially exemplary and should be considered as a model for other professional societies to follow.
• Other organizations that facilitate the research and training of people in science, engineering, and medicine, such as collaborative field sites (i.e., national labs and observatories), should establish standards of behavior

3 See https://www.aaas.org/news/sea-change-program-aims-transform-diversity-efforts-stem .

and set policies, procedures, and practices similar to those recommended for academic institutions and following the examples of professional societies. They should hold people accountable for their behaviors while at their facility regardless of the person’s institutional affiliation (just as some professional societies are doing).

RECOMMENDATION 11: Initiate legislative action.

State legislatures and Congress should consider new and additional legislation with the following goals:

• Better protecting sexual harassment claimants from retaliation.
• Prohibiting confidentiality in settlement agreements that currently enable harassers to move to another institution and conceal past adjudications.
• Banning mandatory arbitration clauses for discrimination claims.
• Allowing lawsuits to be filed against alleged harassers directly (instead of or in addition to their academic employers).
• Requiring institutions receiving federal funds to publicly disclose results from campus climate surveys and/or the number of sexual harassment reports made to campuses.
• Requesting the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health devote research funds to doing a follow-up analysis on the topic of sexual harassment in science, engineering, and medicine in 3 to 5 years to determine (1) whether research has shown that the prevalence of sexual harassment has decreased, (2) whether progress has been made on implementing these recommendations, and (3) where to focus future efforts.

RECOMMENDATION 12: Address the failures to meaningfully enforce Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination.

• Judges, academic institutions (including faculty, staff, and leaders in academia), and administrative agencies should rely on scientific evidence about the behavior of targets and perpetrators of sexual harassment when assessing both institutional compliance with the law and the merits of individual claims.
• Federal judges should take into account demonstrated effectiveness of anti-harassment policies and practices such as trainings, and not just their existence , for use of an affirmative defense against a sexual harassment claim under Title VII.

RECOMMENDATION 13: Increase federal agency action and collaboration.

Federal agencies should do the following:

• Increase support for research and evaluation of the effectiveness of policies, procedures, and training on sexual harassment.
• Attend to sexual harassment with at least the same level of attention and resources as devoted to research misconduct. They should increase collaboration among offices that oversee the integrity of research (i.e., those that cover ethics, research misconduct, diversity, and harassment issues); centralize resources, information, and expertise; provide more resources for handling complaints and working with targets; and implement sanctions on researchers found guilty of sexual harassment.
• Require institutions to report to federal agencies when individuals on grants have been found to have violated sexual harassment policies or have been put on administrative leave related to sexual harassment, as the National Science Foundation has proposed doing. Agencies should also hold accountable the perpetrator and the institution by using a range of disciplinary actions that limit the negative effects on other grant personnel who were either the target of the harassing behavior or innocent bystanders.
• Reward and incentivize colleges and universities for implementing policies, programs, and strategies that research shows are most likely to and are succeeding in reducing and preventing sexual harassment.

RECOMMENDATION 14: Conduct necessary research.

Funders should support the following research:

• The sexual harassment experiences of women in underrepresented and/or vulnerable groups, including women of color, disabled women, immigrant women, sexual- and gender-minority women, postdoctoral trainees, and others.
• Policies, procedures, trainings, and interventions, specifically their ability to prevent and stop sexually harassing behavior, to alter perception of organizational tolerance for sexually harassing behavior, and to reduce the negative consequences from reporting the incidents. This should include research on informal and formal reporting mechanisms, bystander intervention training, academic leadership training, sexual harassment and diversity training, interventions to improve civility, mandatory reporting requirements, and approaches to supporting and improving communication with the target.
• Approaches for mitigating the negative impacts and outcomes that targets experience.
• The prevalence and nature of sexual harassment within specific fields in

science, engineering, and medicine and that follows good practices for sexual harassment surveys.

• The prevalence and nature of sexual harassment perpetrated by students on faculty.
• The amount of sexual harassment that serial harassers are responsible for.
• The prevalence and effect of ambient harassment in the academic setting.
• The connections between consensual relationships and sexual harassment.
• Psychological characteristics that increase the risk of perpetrating different forms of sexually harassing behaviors.

RECOMMENDATION 15: Make the entire academic community responsible for reducing and preventing sexual harassment.

All members of our nation’s college campuses—students, trainees, faculty, staff, and administrators—as well as members of research and training sites should assume responsibility for promoting civil and respectful education, training, and work environments, and stepping up and confronting those whose behaviors and actions create sexually harassing environments.

This page intentionally left blank.

Over the last few decades, research, activity, and funding has been devoted to improving the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women in the fields of science, engineering, and medicine. In recent years the diversity of those participating in these fields, particularly the participation of women, has improved and there are significantly more women entering careers and studying science, engineering, and medicine than ever before. However, as women increasingly enter these fields they face biases and barriers and it is not surprising that sexual harassment is one of these barriers.

Over thirty years the incidence of sexual harassment in different industries has held steady, yet now more women are in the workforce and in academia, and in the fields of science, engineering, and medicine (as students and faculty) and so more women are experiencing sexual harassment as they work and learn. Over the last several years, revelations of the sexual harassment experienced by women in the workplace and in academic settings have raised urgent questions about the specific impact of this discriminatory behavior on women and the extent to which it is limiting their careers.

Sexual Harassment of Women explores the influence of sexual harassment in academia on the career advancement of women in the scientific, technical, and medical workforce. This report reviews the research on the extent to which women in the fields of science, engineering, and medicine are victimized by sexual harassment and examines the existing information on the extent to which sexual harassment in academia negatively impacts the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women pursuing scientific, engineering, technical, and medical careers. It also identifies and analyzes the policies, strategies and practices that have been the most successful in preventing and addressing sexual harassment in these settings.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Ending Sexual Assault and Harassment in the Workplace

Sexual assault, harassment, and abuse are widespread societal problems that impact Americans across race, gender identity, sexual orientation, income, disability status, and many other factors. Recent research has demonstrated the scope and impact of workplace sexual harassment. This online resource collection includes information about defining workplace sexual harassment, understanding the scope of the size of the problem, and the path to prevention.

What is sexual harassment?

Under Federal law it is unlawful to harass a person (applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). Sexual harassment is defined by its impact, not its intent. The conduct must be unwelcome to be considered sexual harassment. It can include behavior such as:

• unwelcome sexual advances
• requests for sexual favors,
• verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature
• inappropriate statements
• lewd gestures
• leering behavior
• sexually explicit jokes, emails, or texts
• offensive objects or images.

Anyone of any age, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity can be a victim or a harasser. The victim and the harasser can also be of the same sex, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity.

• Thirty eight percent of all women and fourteen percent of men have reported experiencing sexual harassment at work (Kearl, Johns, & Raj, 2019).
• 1 in 7 women and 1 in 17 men have sought a new job assignment, changed jobs, or quit a job because of sexual harassment and assault (Kearl et al., 2019).
• Sixty percent of women say they have experienced unwanted sexual attention, sexual coercion, sexually crude conduct, or sexist comments in the workplace (Feldblum & Lipnic, 2016).
• In some industries, more than 9 in 10 women say they have been sexually harassed (Puente & Kelly, 2018).
• Over 85 percent of people who experience sexual harassment never file a formal legal charge, and approximately 70 percent of employees never even complain internally (Feldblum & Lipnic, 2016).
• Psychological symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, stress, and anxiety.
• Physical problems such as headaches, sleep problems, gastric problems, weight loss/gain, etc.
• Impact on other employees/witnesses - The damaging effects of harassment do not just impact the employee who is the victim of sexual harassment. Those who observe it can also suffer mental and physical harm and employee morale can decrease.
• Costs for businesses – Businesses can face financial costs associated with harassment complaints in addition to decreased employee productivity, increased employee turnover rate, and reputational harm.

Workplace sexual harassment general information

The resources below provide general information and research about sexual harassment in the workplace.

Sexual Harassment and Assault at Work: Understanding the Costs   (PDF, 12 pages) This briefing paper by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) reviews current literature on sexual harassment and assault and the impact on women’s economic advancement and economic security. Recommendations for preventing sexual harassment are also included.

Out of the Shadows: An Analysis of Sexual Harassment Charges filed by Working Women (PDF, 38 pages) The National Women’s Law Center analyzed sexual harassment charges filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by women in the private sector between 2012 and 2016. In 2016, almost 7,000 sexual harassment charges were filed, 82% by women. This report shares the findings from their analysis and recommendations for future research, prevention by employers, and legislative change.

#MeTooWhatNext: Strengthening Workplace Sexual Harassment Protections and Accountability (PDF, 10 pages) This resource from the National Women’s Law Center focuses on policy changes to extend protections to more workers, strengthening employees ability to hold employers and individuals accountable for harassment, redressing the harm to victims, restricting employer imposed secrecy, and requiring sexual harassment prevention strategies.

Know Your Rights At Work: Sexual Harassment : (Webpage) This online guide by Equal Rights Advocates can help those experiencing sexual harassment at work understand their rights and options.

Workplace sexual harassment online toolkits

The following are resources and tools for advocates and employers working to prevent and respond to sexual harassment.

Workplaces Respond to Domestic & Sexual Violence: A National Resource Center: (Webpage) Workplaces Respond provides resources, training, and technical assistance to employers , survivors, co-workers , and advocates to prevent and respond to sexual harassment, abuse, assault, and other forms of violence impacting the workplace. Highlighted resources by Workplaces Respond includes:

• COVID-19 Survivors & the Workplace (Webpage) – list of resources for employers on how to support survivors in the workplace during COVID-19.
• Guide for Advocates (PDF, 5 pages) - Outlines the strategies advocates can implement to help prevent and respond to sexual harassment, abuse, and assault in the workplace.
• Model Workplace Policy (PDF, 10 pages) – A customizable model policy on responding to violence in the workplace that employers can customize.
• The Top 10 Things Employers Can Do Right Now to Address Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (Blog post) – List of action items for employers to address sexual harassment.

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Toolkit (PDF, 41 pages) This toolkit by Equal Rights Advocates contains information about employees' legal rights, tips on what to do if an employee experiences sexual harassment or is facing retaliation, and provides additional resources for legal information.

#NowWhat: The Sexual Harassment Solutions Toolkit (webpage) This toolkit by New America is the companion piece to their Sexual Harassment: A Severe and Pervasive Problem report that documents the pervasiveness of sexual harassment. The toolkit focuses on promising solutions for preventing sexual harassment.

National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) resources

Sexual Violence & the Workplace Information Packet (webpage) This information packet by NSVRC provides resources on the impact of sexual harassment, abuse, and assault on a survivor’s employment, and how to prevent it from happening. Resources are available for advocates and employers. Highlighted resources include:

• Guide for Employers (PDF, 16 pages) The purpose of this guide is to provide employers with information that may help them create a comprehensive violence prevention and response plan in collaboration with community-based rape crisis centers.
• Guide for Advocates (PDF, 16 pages) Using Sexual Violence and the Spectrum of Prevention (Davis, Parks, & Cohen, 2006), this guide provides advocates with information about the connections between sexual harassment, abuse, and assault, and employment and offers possible prevention strategies.

Key Findings from National Prevalence of Sexual Violence by a Workplace-Related Perpetrator (PDF, 8 pages)  This analysis by NSVRC provides an overview of a new analysis on workplace sexual violence.  This overview provides information on specifics types of sexual violence people have experienced and offers a closer look at the people who perpetrate these behaviors.

Ending Sexual Assault and Harassment in the Workplace (PDF, 3 pages) This tip sheet by NSVRC discusses the prevalence of workplace sexual harassment and provides tips for preventing it.

Helping Industries to Classify Reports of Sexual Harassment, Sexual Misconduct, and Sexual Assault (PDF, 53 pages) This report by the Urban Institute and NSVRC developed a system of categorization for reports of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and sexual assault received by Uber from users of the ride-sharing and other app-driven services. The report also discusses ways this method can improve similar efforts in other businesses and industries.

Impact of workplace sexual harassment in specific industries

The following are resources that highlight specific industries where survivors may have unique experiences of sexual assault, harassment, and abuse.

Take off you mask so I know how much to tip you.  Service Workers’ Experience of Health & Harassment During COVID-19 (PDF, 30 pages) This report from One Fair Wage presents findings from their survey of workers in the service industry in five states (New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, and Pennsylvania) and Washington D.C.  The report finds more than 80% of workers have seen a decline in tips and over 40% say they have experienced an increase in sexual harassment from customers. Detailed state reports are also available for New York , Massachusetts , and Illinois .

Sexual Harassment in STEM Research: Agencies Have Taken Actions, but Need Complaint Procedures, Overall Plans, and Better Collaboration (PDF, 82 pages).  This report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examines how selected federal agencies receive, investigate and resolve Title IX complaints, agency plans to prevent sexual harassment and evaluation of those efforts and finally collaboration efforts.  Seventeen recommendations are also outlined.  

Sexual Harassment: Inconsistent and Incomplete Policies and Information hinder VA’s Efforts to Protect Employees (PDF, 78 pages) This report by the GAO summarizes findings from a review of VA’s efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment.  It examines VA policies to prevent and address sexual harassment and training provided to employers to prevent and address sexual harassment. The report concludes with seven recommendations.    

Technical Report: National Park Service (NPS) Work Environment Survey January –March 2017 (PDF, 222 pages) This report presents the findings from the National Park Service Work Environment Survey that analyzed the workplace harassment experiences of employees and the impact of that harassment.

Still Broken: Sexual Harassment and Misconduct in the Legal Profession: A National Study (PDF, 68 pages) This report provides the findings from a national study conducted by Women Lawyers on Guard on sexual misconduct and harassment experienced by people in the legal profession.

#MeToo in Traditionally Male-Dominated Occupations: Preventing and Addressing Sexual Harassment (PDF, 7 pages) This briefing paper by Chicago Women in Trades and the National Center for Women’s Equality in Apprenticeship and Employment provides an overview of how sexual harassment differs for women in male-dominated workplaces and provides recommendations for public policy and changes employers can make.

Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (website) The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s report on sexual harassment in academia examines the impacts of sexual harassment and identifies and analyzes policies, strategies, and practices that have been successful in preventing and responding to sexual harassment. Additional resources are available including an infographic on Preventing Sexual Harassment in Academia , infographicon The Iceberg of Sexual Harassment , and Interventions for Preventing Sexual Harassment .

Workplace Violence and Harassment of Low-Wage Workers (PDF, 47 pages) This article discusses the challenges and barriers low-wage workers encounter when they face sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace and proposes strategies for legal advocates on how to help survivors.

Tipped Over the Edge: Gender Inequity in the Restaurant Industry (PDF, 40 pages) This report by the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United et al. documents the gender inequality in the restaurant work. It highlights discrimination and violence many workers experience while working. More than one in ten surveyed workers reported they or a co-worker had experienced sexual harassment while working in a restaurant.

The Glass Floor: Sexual Harassment in the Restaurant Industry (PDF, 40 pages) This report by the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United and Forward Together documents the sexual harassment experiences of restaurant workers and reports how sexual harassment is fueled by sub-minimum wage and tipped employment. Finally, the report provides policy recommendations to create safer and more equitable workplaces.

Reality Check: Seventeen Million Reasons Low-Wage Workers Need Strong Protections from Harassment (PDF, 28 pages) This document by the National Women’s Law Center reports on the realities of sexual harassment experiences of low wage workers and provides suggestions for protections against harassment.

The impact of workplace sexual harassment on immigrant workers

The following resources can help prevent and respond to the unique needs of immigrant workers who experience sexual assault, harassment and abuse in the workplace.

Cultivating Fear: The Vulnerability of Immigrant Farmworkers in the US to Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment (PDF, 95 pages) This report by Human Rights Watch discusses the sexual abuse, harassment, and assault experiences of immigrant farmworkers in the United States. The report suggests that these experiences are common among farmworking women, reporting is limited, and that an advocate’s presence may increase reporting of these crimes.

Rape on the Night Shift (webpage) by Frontline (PBS), Univision, The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR), the Investigative Reporting Program (IRP) at UC Berkeley, and EQED. This investigative report follows up the story on Rape in the Fields and covers the sexual abuse of immigrant women who work on the night shift cleaning offices, malls and businesses. Watch the full length documentary . Materials are also available in Spanish .

Rape in the Fields (webpage) by Frontline, the Center for Investigative Reporting, Investigative Reporting Program, & Documentales Univision. This special report includes investigative reporting articles and a 53-minute film on the sexual assault, harassment, and abuse against farmworking women. Resources for agricultural workers are available. Some materials are available in Spanish .

Injustice On Our Plates: Immigrant Women in the U.S. Food Industry (PDF, 68 p.) This report by the Southern Poverty Law Center documents interviews of undocumented farmworkers. Female farmworkers are vulnerable to sexual assault, harassment, and abuse. This report discusses the economic challenges, workplace exploitation, sexual harassment, and abuse women experience while working in the fields.

Sexual Harassment in the Informal Economy: Farmworkers and Domestic Workers (PDF 56 pages) This paper by UN Women focuses on sexual harassment experienced by workers in the informal economy with a focus on farmworkers and domestic workers, who are often unrecognized without social or legal protections making them particularly vulnerable.

Sexual Violence Against Farmworkers: A Guidebook for Social Service Providers (PDF 68 p.) This guide by California Rural Legal Assistance, Esperanza, Lideres Campesinas, and Victim Rights Law Center provides information to advocates on how farmworkers are impacted by sexual assault, harassment, and abuse and how to best serve their unique needs. A guidebook for legal providers and criminal justice professionals are also available.

The role and responsibility of employers

Workplace sexual harassment is one of the most widespread and pervasive problems in U.S. society. Employers have a role and a responsibility to keep their employees safe. Employers could be held liable for sexual harassment and assault that happens in the workplace. Sexual harassment, assault, and abuse do not have to occur at work or be perpetrated by a coworker to impact a survivor’s employment (National Sexual Violence Resource Center [NSVRC], 2013). Survivors may miss days of work, experience decreased productivity at work, or be forced to quit their job because of violence they have experienced.

Using research and best practices, we can create healthier workplace cultures where the work environment promotes the safety and well-being of all employees.Below are resources for employers and people working with employers to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

The following findings from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace demonstrate the steps necessary for employers to move toward prevention. The report Key Findings of the Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace (PDF, 20 pages) by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center covers the key findings of the EEOC's study:

• Workplace harassment is still a persistent problem and often goes unreported because victims fear negative reactions such as disbelief, blame, and retaliation.
• It benefits workplaces to prevent and respond to sexual harassment since it is costly. In direct costs, for example, an estimated settlement in 2012 was over $356 million and the largest sexual harassment jury award was $168 million. It is also costly indirectly through employee absenteeism and turnover of both victims of the harassment and bystanders who witness the sexual harassment.
• Change starts at the top. Employers should foster a culture where sexual harassment is not tolerated and respect is promoted. Examples of steps that can be taken include – assessing their workplace, conducting climate surveys, devoting resources to prevention efforts, and holding people accountable who commit sexual harassment.
• Organizations should have a stated comprehensive policy against harassment that outlines what behaviors will not be accepted and the procedure for reporting and responding to harassment as confidentially as possible. A reporting system should include multiple ways to report harassment. Disciplinary action for harassment should be proportionate to the offense as “zero tolerate” one sized-fits all policies tend to backfire.
• Training must change by moving beyond just compliance training to a holistic effort to prevent and respond to harassment. New and different approaches to training should be explored – including workplace respect and civility training and bystander intervention training.

Resources for employers on preventing workplace sexual harassment

STOP SV: A Technical Package to Prevent Sexual Violence : (PDF, 48 p.) This technical package by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides strategies on the best available evidence to help communities and states prevent sexual violence and reduce its consequences. See the section “Create Protective Environments” for information on establishing and consistently applying workplace policies.

Workplaces Respond to Domestic and Sexual Violence: A National Resource Center (webpage) by Futures Without Violence . This website provides many resources and interactive tools for employers . Employers can download a workplace toolkit , read a guide for supervisors , learn more about supervising during the pandemic , and download a model workplace policy .

Guidance for Agency-Specific Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking Policies (PDF, 38 pages) This document by the United States Office of Personnel Management provides federal agencies with direction on responding to violence in the workplace.

An Employer, Union & Service Provider’s Guide to Ending Street Harassment (PDF, 25 pages) This guide by Debjani Roy of Hollaback! explains how street harassment impacts the workplace and provides information for employers on what they can do to help. Listen to a podcast with the author.

Encourage, Support Act! Bystander Approaches to Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (PDF, 29 pages) This document by the Australian Human Rights Commission illustrates how the bystander approach can be utilized in a workplace setting to prevent workplace sexual assault, harassment, and abuse.

Sexual Violence & the Workplace: Employer’s Guide to Prevention (PDF, 16 pages) When sexual assault, harassment, or abuse occurs in the workplace, it can create a climate of fear and reduce productivity and wellness of the entire staff. The purpose of this guide by NSVRC is to provide employers with information that may help facilitate their engagement in creating a comprehensive violence prevention and response plan in collaboration with community-based rape crisis centers.

Davis, R., Parks, L. F., & Cohen, L. (2006). Sexual violence and the spectrum of prevention: Towards a community solution. Retrieved from the National Sexual Violence Resource Center: http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Booklets_Sexual-Violence-and-the-Spectrum-of-Prevention_Towards-a-Community-Solution_0.pdf

Feldblum, C. R., & Lipnic, V. A. (2016 ). Select task force on the study of harassment in the workplace: Report of the co-chairs of the EEOC . Retrieved from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_force/harassment/upload/report.pdf

Kearl, H., Johns, N. E., & Raj, A. (2019). Measuring #metoo: A national study on sexual harassment and assault . Available from Stop Street Harassment: http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2019-MeToo-National-Sexual-Harassment-and-Assault-Report.pdf

National Sexual Violence Resource Center. (2013). Sexual violence & the workplace: Overview . Retrieved from https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/2013-04/publications_nsvrc_overview_sexual-violence-workplace.pdf

Puente, M., & Kelly, C. (2018, February 23). The 94 percent: How common is sexual misconduct in Hollywood? USA Today . Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/02/20/how-common-sexual-misconduct-hollywood/1083964001/

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Sexual harassment . Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Gender discrimination comes in many forms for today’s working women

About four-in-ten working women (42%) in the United States say they have faced discrimination on the job because of their gender. They report a broad array of personal experiences, ranging from earning less than male counterparts for doing the same job to being passed over for important assignments, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data.

The survey – conducted in the summer before a recent wave of sexual misconduct allegations against prominent men in politics, the media and other industries – found that, among employed adults, women are about twice as likely as men (42% versus 22%) to say they have experienced at least one of eight specific forms of gender discrimination at work.

One of the biggest gender gaps is in the area of income: One-in-four working women (25%) say they have earned less than a man who was doing the same job; one-in-twenty working men (5%) say they have earned less than a female peer.

Women are roughly four times as likely as men to say they have been treated as if they were not competent because of their gender (23% of employed women versus 6% of men), and they are about three times as likely as men to say they have experienced repeated small slights at work because of their gender (16% versus 5%).

There are significant gaps on other items as well. While 15% of working women say they have received less support from senior leaders than a man who was doing the same job, only 7% of working men report having a similar experience. One-in-ten working women say they have been passed over for the most important assignments because of their gender, compared with 5% of men.

The survey, which was conducted July 11-Aug. 10, 2017, with a nationally representative sample of 4,914 adults (including 4,702 who are employed at least part time), also asked about sexual harassment in a separate question. It found that while similar shares of women and men say sexual harassment is at least a small problem in their workplace (36% versus 35%), women are about three times as likely as men to have experienced it personally while at work (22% versus 7%).

In more recent surveys conducted by other organizations, the share of women reporting personal experiences with sexual harassment has fluctuated, depending in part on how the question was asked. In an ABC News/Washington Post survey conducted Oct. 12-15, for example, 54% of women said they have received unwanted sexual advances from a man that they felt were inappropriate whether or not those advances were work-related; 30% said this had happened to them at work. In an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll conducted Nov. 13-15, 35% of women said they have personally experienced sexual harassment or abuse from someone in the workplace.

The Center’s survey asked about sexual harassment specific to the workplace. The survey was conducted as part of a broader forthcoming study on women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields.

Differences by education

Among employed women, the share saying they have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace is roughly similar across racial and ethnic, educational, generational and partisan lines. But when it comes to specific forms of workplace discrimination tested in the survey, there are significant differences among women that are rooted mainly in their level of education.

Women with a bachelor’s degree or more education report experiencing discrimination across a range of items at significantly higher rates than women with less education. And in some regards, the most highly educated women stand out. While 57% of working women with a postgraduate degree say they have experienced some form of gender discrimination at work, for example, the same is true for 40% of women with a bachelor’s degree and 39% of those who did not complete college.

Roughly three-in-ten working women with a postgraduate degree (29%) say they have experienced repeated small slights at work because of their gender, compared with 18% of those with a bachelor’s degree and 12% with less education. Similarly, working women with a postgraduate degree are much more likely than their less-educated counterparts to say they have received less support from senior leaders than a man doing the same job (27% of postgraduate women, compared with 11% of women with bachelor’s degrees and 13% of women with less education). The pattern is similar when it comes to being passed over for promotions and feeling isolated at work.

When it comes to wages, working women with a bachelor’s degree or more are much more likely than those with less education to say they have earned less than a man who performed the same job. Women with family incomes of $100,000 or higher stand out here as well – 30% of them say they’ve earned less than a man who was doing comparable work compared with roughly one-in-five women with lower incomes (21%). But overall, women with higher family incomes are about equally likely to have experienced at least one of these eight forms of gender-based discrimination at work.

There are differences by race and ethnicity as well. While roughly half of employed black women (53%) say they have experienced at least one type of gender discrimination at work, fewer white and Hispanic women say the same (40% for each group). One area in particular where black women stand apart is in their reporting of having been passed over for the most important assignments because of their gender – 22% of employed black women say this has happened to them, compared with 8% of whites and 9% of Hispanics.

Women’s experiences with discrimination in the workplace also differ along party lines. Roughly half (48%) of working Democratic women and Democratic-leaning independents say they have experienced at least one form of gender discrimination at work, compared with a third of Republican and Republican-leaning women. These party differences hold up even after controlling for race. The partisan gap is in keeping with wide party differences among both men and women in their views of gender equality in the U.S.; a separate 2017 Pew Research Center survey found Democrats largely dissatisfied with the country’s progress toward gender equality.

About the survey: These are some of the findings from a survey conducted among a nationally representative sample of 4,914 adults, ages 18 and older, from July 11-Aug. 10, 2017. The survey, which was conducted online in English and in Spanish through GfK’s Knowledge Panel, included an oversample of employed adults working in science, technology, engineering and math-related fields. The margin of sampling error based on the 4,702 employed adults in the sample is plus or minus 2.0 percentage points. The margin of sampling error based on the 2,344 employed women in the sample is plus or minus 3.0 percentage points. See the  topline  for exact question wording.

• Business & Workplace
• Discrimination & Prejudice
• Economics, Work & Gender
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Gender & Work
• Gender Equality & Discrimination

Kim Parker is director of social trends research at Pew Research Center .

Cary Funk is director of science and society research at Pew Research Center .

Is College Worth It?

Half of latinas say hispanic women’s situation has improved in the past decade and expect more gains, a majority of latinas feel pressure to support their families or to succeed at work, a look at small businesses in the u.s., majorities of adults see decline of union membership as bad for the u.s. and working people, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Brief Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

In 2017, the #Metoo movement swept through the U.S. bringing a fresh focus on sexual harassment in workplaces, but protections were in place before that.

In the late 1980’s, the Supreme Court interpreted  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964  to include discrimination based on “sex” as sexual harassment in the workplace. The law recognizing sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination applies to private employers with 15 or more employees, as well as government and labor organizations.

Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of ways, according to the  U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  (EEOC):

• The victim, as well as the harasser, may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex from the harasser.
• The harasser may be the victim’s supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker or a nonemployee, such as a vendor or customer.
• The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
• Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.
• The harasser’s conduct must be unwelcome.

More than 6,500 sexual harassment claims were filed with the  EEOC in FY 2020.  This represents a drop from FY 2019, but we cannot be sure about what may have caused this decrease. Many states are looking to go beyond federal regulations to prevent workplace sexual harassment. Some states have included “sex” in their discrimination laws as a protected class.

Depending on the specific state, “sex” protections can cover the prohibition of sexual harassment in the workplace. Other states have explicitly included a prohibition of sexual assault in the workplace in their employment discrimination laws. Currently, 50 states including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico prohibit “sex” discrimination. Twelve of these states cover sexual harassment under the protection against workplace discrimination based on sex. Thirty-nine other states including D.C. and Puerto Rico explicitly state that “sexual harassment” is not permitted in a workplace. Eight states go beyond prohibiting these practices by requiring employers to provide sexual harassment training in their workplaces while three states encourage employers to provide this training.

Other states are looking for ways to ensure victims of sexual harassment in the workplace can report their accusations. A number of states are currently working on legislation to prohibit the use of non-disclosure agreements in situations involving workplace sexual misconduct. These states include:   Arizona ,  Massachusetts , and  Rhode Island . While the Arizona and Rhode Island legislative sessions have ended and both bills failed to pass, the Massachusetts legislature is still in session allowing the opportunity for the bill to pass.

Below is an overview of all 50 states' current laws regarding sexual harassment and sexual harassment training in the workplace. (Source: Bloomberg Law)

Please note NCSL cannot provide advice or assistance to private citizens or businesses regarding employment-related matters. Please consult your  state department of labor  or a private attorney.

Sexual Harassment Prohibitions

Alabama doesn't have sexual harassment statutes or regulations that apply generally to private-sector employment.

Training Requirement

[Note: The Alaska State Commission for Human Rights considers sexual harassment to be prohibited under the state's fair employment practices law.]

Sexual harassment is prohibited.

Nondisclosure agreements: A nondisclosure agreement's terms can't be used to prohibit certain disclosures related to actual or alleged violations of Arizona criminal laws regarding sexual offenses or obscenity. Specifically, they can't prohibit a party from answering a peace officer's or prosecutor's inquiry or making a statement not initiated by the party in a criminal proceeding. These disclosures can't be used to avoid or invalidate a party's right to consideration under the agreement or to require a party to return consideration that has been provided (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-720).

[Note: The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that sexual harassment is prohibited by the fair employment practices law (Island v. Buena Vista Resort, 352 Ark. 548, 103 S.W.3d 671 (2003)).]

Fair employment practices law: Employers and their agents or supervisors can't commit or allow sexual harassment. Employers also can't aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce unlawful sexual harassment or try to do so.

There are two types of sexual harassment:

• Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a job or promotion is explicitly or implicitly conditioned on applicants' or employees' submission to sexual advances or other conduct based on sex.
• Hostile work environment harassment occurs when unwelcome comments or conduct based on sex unreasonably interfere with employees' work performance or create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. The harassment must be subjectively and objectively offensive and so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment and creates an abusive work environment. A single unwelcome act of harassment can be severe enough to create a hostile work environment.

Sexual harassment includes:

• verbal harassment such as epithets, derogatory comments, or slurs;
• physical harassment such as assault, impeding or blocking movement, or physical interference with normal work or movement;
• visual harassment such as derogatory posters, cartoons, or drawings; and
• unwanted sexual advances that condition employment benefits on sexual favors.

Employment benefits include hiring, employment, promotions, selection for training programs leading to employment or promotions, retention in employment or training programs, compensation, and the provision of a harassment-free workplace. They also include selection or training for or retention in unpaid internships or other limited-duration programs that provide unpaid work experience in apprenticeship training programs or other training programs leading to employment or promotions.

Loss of tangible employment benefits isn't necessary to establish that sexual harassment occurred. Sexually harassing conduct doesn't need to be motivated by sexual desire.

[Note: Cal. Civ. Code § 51.9 prohibits sexual harassment in the context of certain business, service, or professional relationships outside the workplace, whereas the fair employment practices law applies to workplace sexual harassment (Hughes v. Pair, 209 P.3d 963 (Cal. 2009)).]

Cal. Gov't Code § 12940 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, §§ 11019, 11034

Fair employment practices law: Employers must instruct supervisory and nonsupervisory employees on sexual harassment prevention by January 1, 2021 and once every two years thereafter.

[Note: The August 30, 2019, enactment of 2019 Cal. Stat. 215 (S.B. 778) extended the deadline for providing the required training to January 1, 2021. Previously the deadline was January 1, 2020, in accordance with 2018 Cal. Stat. 956 (S.B. 1343), effective January 1, 2019.]

Specifically, employers must provide at least two hours of classroom or other effective interactive training and education to all supervisory employees in California, and at least one hour of such instruction to all nonsupervisory employees in the state. New supervisory and nonsupervisory employees must receive instruction within six months after they assume a position. [Note: An employer that provided this instruction to an employee in 2019 isn't required to provide refresher training until two years thereafter.]

Supervisory employees are employees who are authorized to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, discipline, or direct other employees, adjust their grievances, or recommend these actions. New supervisory employees are employees who have been hired or promoted to a supervisory position since employers last provided instruction on sexual harassment prevention.

Supervisors aren't subject to the training requirements if they complied within the past two years through their current employer or a prior, alternate, or joint employer and they received, read, and acknowledged receipt of their current employer's anti-harassment policy within six months after assuming a new supervisory position or within six months after the employer became subject to the requirements. Their current employer has the burden of establishing such prior compliance.

Effective September 28, 2020, employees who have received compliant training within the past two years from a current, previous, alternate or joint employer, or who receive a work permit from the Labor Commission that required them to receive compliant training within the past two years, must read and acknowledge receipt of the employer's anti-harassment policy within six months of assuming their new position. Employees must then be placed on a two year tracking schedule based on their last training. The current employer has the burden of establishing the prior training was compliant with the requirements.

Employers also must provide instruction on sexual harassment prevention to seasonal employees, temporary employees, and employees who are hired to work for less than six months. This instruction must be provided within 30 calendar days of hire or within 100 hours worked, whichever occurs first. If a temporary employee is employed by a temporary services employer (as defined in Cal. Lab. Code § 201.3) to perform services for clients, that employer(not the clients) must provide the instruction.

New businesses must provide instruction on sexual harassment prevention within six months after they are established and once every two years thereafter. Established businesses that become subject to the training requirements must provide this instruction within six months after the requirements apply to them and once every two years thereafter.

To track the frequency of training, employers can use either or both of the following methods:

• Individual basis: Employers can track training on an individual basis by measuring two years from the date each supervisor last completed training.
• Training-year basis: Employers can designate a training year in which they train some or all of their supervisors. These supervisors must be retrained by the end of the subsequent training year, which is two years later. If new supervisors receive initial training in a nontraining year, they can be retrained in the next training year and every training year thereafter.

Employers aren't liable to current or former employees and applicants, in any lawsuit alleging sexual harassment, solely based on a claim that they didn't receive the required instruction on sexual harassment prevention. Likewise, employers' compliance with the training requirements doesn't protect them from liability for sexual harassment.

Training Format

Employers can provide sexual harassment prevention training in conjunction with other training provided to employees. Employees can complete this training individually or as part of a group presentation, and they can complete it in segments if the total time requirement is met. Employers can develop their own training courses or direct employees to online training courses provided by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The department provides these courses on its website in English and various other languages. Employees who complete the required training can obtain a certificate of completion from the department.

Effective interactive training includes any of the following:

• Classroom training, which is in-person instruction provided by a qualified trainer (see trainer requirements below) who creates the content and provides it to supervisors in a setting removed from their daily duties.
• E-learning training, which is individualized, interactive, computer-based training created by a qualified trainer (see trainer requirements below) and an instructional designer. Instructional designers develop training content based on trainer-provided material and their own expertise in current instructional best practices. This training must provide a link or directions on how to contact the trainer with questions and provide guidance and assistance within two business days after questions are asked.
• Webinar training, which is an internet-based seminar with content that is created and taught by a qualified trainer (see trainer requirements below) and transmitted over the internet or intranet in real time. This webinar must provide an opportunity to ask questions, have them answered, and otherwise seek guidance and assistance.

Employers can use audio, video, or computer technology or other tools in conjunction with classroom, e-learning, or webinar training; however, these tools are supplemental only and don't meet the training requirements by themselves. For any of the above training methods, instruction must include questions that assess learning; skill-building activities that assess the application and understanding of content; and numerous hypothetical scenarios about harassment, each with one or more discussion questions. Training doesn't need to be completed in two consecutive hours, but classroom or webinar training segments must be at least half an hour. E-learning training can use bookmarks that allow participants to pause their training session.

Training Content

California requires training on sexual harassment prevention to:

• help employers change workplace behavior that causes or contributes to unlawful sexual harassment, and harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation;
• help supervisors prevent, respond to, address, and correct this behavior; and
• inform supervisors about the negative impact of abusive conduct at the workplace(see “abusive conduct” below).

To meet these objectives, such training must at least cover:

• a definition of unlawful sexual harassment, and harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act and Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964;
• FEHA and Title VII statutory provisions and case law principles regarding the prohibition, prevention, and correction of unlawful harassment, discrimination and retaliation;
• the types of conduct that constitute harassment;
• available remedies for harassment victims in lawsuits and potential liability for employers and individuals;
• strategies for preventing harassment at the workplace;
• supervisors' obligation to report harassment, discrimination, and retaliation when they become aware of it;
• practical examples of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation through training modalities such as role play, case studies, and group discussion;
• the limited confidentiality of the complaint process;
• resources for harassment victims (for example, instructions on how to report alleged harassment);
• appropriate remedies for correcting harassing behavior, including employers' obligation to effectively investigate complaints;
• what to do if supervisors are accused of harassment;
• the essential elements of an anti-harassment policy and how to apply it if complaints are filed; and
• the definition of “abusive conduct” (see below).

Abusive conduct: Training on sexual harassment prevention also must address the prevention of abusive conduct in a meaningful way. Specifically, this training should:

• explain the negative impact of abusive conduct on the victims of such conduct, other people at the workplace, and employers;
• discuss the elements of abusive conduct (including the definition below);and
• emphasize that a single act doesn't constitute abusive conduct, unless it is especially severe or egregious.

Abusive conduct is malicious conduct by employers or employees at the workplace if this behavior isn't related to employers' legitimate business interests and would be hostile or offensive to a reasonable person. It can include repeated verbal abuse such as derogatory remarks, insults, or epithets; verbal or physical conduct that would be threatening, intimidating, or humiliating to a reasonable person; and the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of employees' work performance.

Bystander intervention: Training on sexual harassment prevention can, but isn't required to, include training on bystander intervention. This training can provide information and practical guidance that enables bystanders to recognize potentially problematic behaviors and motivates them to take action when they observe these behaviors. The training also can provide exercises that give bystanders the skills and confidence to intervene as appropriate and resources they can rely on to support their intervention.

Sexual orientation and gender identity or expression: Training on sexual harassment prevention also must address harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression and provide practical examples of this harassment.

Trainer Requirements

Trainers and educators are qualified to provide required instruction on sexual harassment prevention if they have a combination of training, experience, knowledge, and expertise that enables them to train supervisors on:

• the definitions of abusive conduct, sexual harassment, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation;
• identifying behavior that might constitute unlawful harassment, discrimination, or retaliation under California and federal laws;
• steps they can take when harassing behavior occurs at the workplace;
• how to report and respond to harassment complaints;
• their obligation to report harassing, discriminatory, or retaliatory behavior when they become aware of it;
• employers'obligation to investigate harassment complaints;
• what constitutes retaliation and how to prevent it;
• the essential components of an anti-harassment policy;
• the impact of harassment on harassed employees, co-workers, harassers, and employers; and
• practical examples in the prevention of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation based on sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and the prevention of abusive conduct.

Trainers must be:

• attorneys who have been admitted for at least two years to any U.S. state bar and whose practice includes employment law under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act or Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964;
• HR professionals, harassment prevention consultants, or, peer-to-peer trainers with at least two years of practical experience in designing or conducting discrimination, retaliation, and harassment prevention training; responding to harassment or discrimination complaints; investigating harassment complaints; or advising employers or employees on discrimination, retaliation, and harassment prevention; or
• professors or instructors who teach at a law school, college, or university, have a post-graduate degree or California teaching credential; and have 20 instruction hours or at least two years of experience at a law school, college or university teaching about California's Fair Employment and Housing Act or Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Trainers who lack the required amount of experience, but are otherwise qualified, can team teach with a qualified trainer in classroom or webinar trainings if that person supervises them and is available during these trainings to answer questions from participants.

Sexual orientation and gender identity or expression: Training that addresses harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression must be presented by trainers or educators with relevant knowledge and expertise.

Cal. Gov't Code §§ 12926, 12950 to 12950.2 (2020 Cal. Stat. 227 (A.B. 3369))

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 11024

Employers and their agents or supervisory employees can't harass employees based on sex. Harassment is a form of discrimination. Harassment means severe or pervasive treatment that creates an objectively and subjectively hostile, intimidating, or offensive work environment, regardless of whether tangible employment actions (such as loss of income) occur.

Sexual harassment that results in discrimination is prohibited. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment is unlawful when submission to this conduct is an explicit or implicit requirement of employment or when employees and applicants are discriminated or retaliated against based on their response to the conduct.

Connecticut

Fair employment practices law: Employers and their agents can't harass employees and applicants based on sex. Sexual harassment means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or conduct of a sexual nature when:

• employees' and applicants' submission to this conduct is explicitly or implicitly made a term or condition of their employment;
• employees' and applicants' submission to or rejection of this conduct is used as the basis for employment decisions that affect them;
• this conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with employees' work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

An employer may not take a corrective action in response to an employee's sexual harassment claim that modifies employment conditions, including relocation, work schedule reassignment, or other substantive changes to the employee's terms and conditions of employment, without the employee's written agreement to such modification. The employer's failure to obtain such written agreement doesn't prohibit the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities from finding, based on the evidence, that the corrective action was reasonable and not detrimental to the employee.

Interns: Employers and their agents can't sexually harass interns or internship applicants. Sexual harassment means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other conduct of a sexual nature when:

• interns' and internship applicants' submission to this conduct is explicitly or implicitly made a term or condition of their internship;
• interns'and internship applicants' submission to or rejection of this conduct is used as the basis for workplace decisions that affect them; or
• this conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with interns' work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Interns are persons who perform work for employers for training purposes if:

• employers aren't committed to hiring them at the end of their training period;
• they agree with employers that they aren't entitled to wages;
• their work supplements educational training in a way that might enhance their employability and provides them with beneficial experience;
• their work doesn't provide any immediate advantage to employers and might occasionally impede employer operations; and
• their work is performed under the supervision of employers or employees and doesn't displace paid employees.

[Note: The state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities announced that pursuant to Executive Order 11 (issued April 19, 2021), the sexual harassment training deadline is extended to May 20, 2021 from the original statutory deadline of October 1, 2020 (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-54). This is a blanket extension and does not require a request to be made. The deadline had previously been extended to February 9, 2021, pursuant to Executive Order 9L (issued November 9, 2020).]

Employers with three or more employees must provide all employees at least two hours of sexual harassment prevention training and education within one year of October 1, 2019, provided that an employer who provided such training after October 1, 2018, is not required to do so a second time under these provisions. An employer with three or more employees must provide training to an employee hired on or after October 1, 2019, within six months after their hiring date.

Employers with less than three employees must provide training to all supervisory employees within one year of October 1, 2019, or within six months of assumption of supervisory duties or hiring for new supervisory employees or supervisory employees hired on or after October 1, 2019. An employer that provided compliant training after October 1, 2018, is not required to do so a second time under these provisions.

Training must be conducted in a classroom-like setting, use clear and understandable language, and allow participants to ask and receive answers to their questions. Audio, video, or other teaching aides are optional. Training can be provided by employers'own employees or other people. All employers required to provide training must provide periodic supplemental training that updates all supervisory and nonsupervisory employees no less than every ten years.

Supervisors have the authority to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline employees or the responsibility to direct them, adjust their grievances, or effectively recommend these actions.

Training content must:

• describe applicable federal and state laws prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace, including Connecticut's Discriminatory Employment Practices Law (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60) and Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.);
• define “sexual harassment”under Connecticut law (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60(a)(8)) and distinguish it from other forms of illegal harassment under state law;
• discuss types of conduct that might constitute illegal sexual harassment, including the fact that men or women can be harassers or victims of harassment and that harassment can occur between members of the same or opposite sex;
• describe remedies available to victims of sexual harassment, including cease-and-desist orders, back pay, compensatory damages, and hiring, promotion, or reinstatement;
• advise employees that people who commit sexual harassment can be subject to civil and criminal penalties;
• discuss strategies for preventing sexual harassment in the workplace.

Employers may use the free training program provided by the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities to comply with the training requirements.

Training content also can:

• instruct supervisors to take all sexual harassment complaints seriously, report them immediately to employer-designated officials, keep them confidential, and only disclose them on a need-to-know basis;
• include experiential exercises such as role playing, coed group discussions, and behavior modeling to facilitate an understanding of what sexual harassment is and how to prevent it;
• teach the importance of listening and other interpersonal skills to better understand what a victim of sexual harassment might be experiencing;
• advise supervisors about the importance of preventive strategies to avoid the negative impact of sexual harassment on victims and overall workplace productivity due to interpersonal conflicts, poor performance, absenteeism, turnover, and grievances;
• explain the benefits of learning about and eliminating sexual harassment, including a more positive work environment with greater productivity and lower exposure to liability;
• explain employers' policy against sexual harassment, including complaint reporting procedures and disciplinary actions; and
• discuss perception and communication differences among people in general and the concept of a “reasonable” person in federal sexual harassment cases.

The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities encourages employers to update supervisors, every three years, on legal interpretations and related developments regarding sexual harassment.

[Note: The Delaware Office of Anti-Discrimination considers sexual harassment to be a form of sex discrimination under the state's fair employment practices law (Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, §§ 710 to 711).]

Effective Jan. 1, 2019, sexual harassment of employees is unlawful when they are subject to conduct that includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature and:

• submission to this conduct is explicitly or implicitly made a term or condition of their employment;
• submission to or rejection of this conduct is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting them;
• this conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with their work performance; or
• this conduct has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Effective Jan. 1, 2019, employees include unpaid interns, applicants (as defined in Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 709B), joint employees, and apprentices (who are learning a Delaware-licensed practice from a practitioner licensed in the applicable profession).

Effective Jan. 1, 2019, employers must provide interactive training and education on sexual harassment prevention to:

• new employees within one year after their employment starts and every two years thereafter; and
• existing employees within one year after Jan. 1, 2019, and every two years thereafter.

Effective Jan. 1, 2019, employees are those who have been employed at least six months continuously. They include unpaid interns, joint employees, and apprentices (who are learning a Delaware-licensed practice from a practitioner licensed in the applicable profession), but don't include applicants (as defined in Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 709B) or independent contractors (as defined in Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 3507).

Effective Jan. 1, 2019, the training must cover:

• the illegality of sexual harassment;
• the definition of sexual harassment, with examples;
• the complaint process and legal remedies available to employees;
• directions on how to contact the Delaware Department of Labor; and
• the prohibition against retaliation.

[Note: If employers provided this training to employees before Jan. 1, 2019, no additional training is required until Jan. 1, 2020.]

Supervisors: Effective Jan. 1, 2019, employers must provide additional interactive training to:

• new supervisors within one year after their supervisory employment starts and every two years thereafter;and
• existing supervisors within one year after Jan. 1, 2019, and every two years thereafter.

Effective Jan. 1, 2019, supervisors are people who are authorized to change employees' employment status or who direct employees' daily work activities.

Effective Jan. 1, 2019, the training must cover supervisors' specific responsibilities regarding the prevention and correction of sexual harassment and cover the prohibition against retaliation.

[Note: If employers provided this training to supervisors before Jan. 1, 2019, no additional training is required until Jan. 1, 2020.]

District of Columbia

Employers can't harass employees or applicants based on their actual or perceived sex. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination.

[Note: On Oct. 23, 2018, the District of Columbia enacted new training requirements for employees, managers, owners, and operators of businesses that employ tipped workers (who are paid in accordance with D.C. Code § 32-1003(f)) regarding how to respond to, intervene in, and prevent sexual harassment (D.C. Code Ann. § 2-1411.05a (2018 D.C. Stat. 22-196 (B. 22-913, Act 22-489), § 5)). The requirements took effect Dec. 13, 2018, but don't apply until their fiscal effect is included in an approved budget and financial plan for the district. On Oct. 2, 2018, the district's chief financial officer issued a fiscal impact statement concluding that funds for fiscal years 2019 through 2022 aren't sufficient to implement the requirements.]

Conduct is deemed to be unlawful sexual harassment when it:

• makes submission to a request for sexual favors or a sexual advance a term or condition of employment;
• interferes substantially with an employee's work performance; or
• creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Employers should affirmatively discourage sexual harassment by raising the subject, expressing strong disapproval, developing appropriate sanctions, informing employees of their right to raise the issue of sexual harassment and taking any other steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment from occurring.

Haw. Code R. 12-46-109

No state statutory or regulatory provisions apply generally to private-sector employment.

[Note: The Idaho Supreme Court has held that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under the fair employment practices law (Paterson v. State, 915 P.2d 724 (1996)). The Idaho Human Rights Commission also considers sexual harassment to be a form of sex discrimination under the fair employment practices law.]

It is a violation of the fair employment practices law for employers and their employees and agents to engage in sexual harassment of employees, applicants, and, effective Jan. 1, 2020, nonemployees. Conduct is deemed to be unlawful sexual harassment when it:

• makes submission to a request for sexual favors, sexual advances, or any conduct of a sexual nature a term or condition of employment;
• makes submission to or rejection of a request for sexual favors, sexual advances, or any conduct of a sexual nature a basis for employment decisions;
• creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Effective Jan. 1, 2020, the “work environment” is not limited to the physical location where employees are assigned to perform their duties.

Effective Jan. 1, 2020, employers must provide sexual harassment prevention training to all employees at least once a year. Employers can use the Illinois Department of Human Rights's model training program, or their own training program if it meets or exceeds the department's minimum standards. The minimum standards for a sexual harassment training program include:

• an explanation of sexual harassment consistent with the fair employment practices law;
• examples of conduct that constitutes unlawful sexual harassment;
• a summary of relevant federal and state statutory provisions concerning sexual harassment, including remedies available to victims; and
• a summary of responsibilities of employers in the prevention, investigation, and corrective measures of sexual harassment.

Employers may use the department's model training program to supplement an employer's existing program. For penalties associated with violations of these requirements, see “Penalties/Remedies” in this summary.

[Note: The Iowa Civil Rights Commission considers harassment based on sex to be a form of prohibited discrimination under the fair employment practices law.]

[Note: The Kentucky Supreme Court has held that sexual harassment is prohibited by the fair employment practices law (Meyers v. Chapman Printing Co., 840 S.W.2d 814 (1992)).]

Harassment based on sex is prohibited. Sex includes pregnancy or related medical conditions.

Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors and comments, jokes, acts, or other verbal or physical conduct that is of a sexual nature or directed at employees based on their sex. Sexual harassment is unlawful when:

• employees' submission to this conduct is made an explicit or implicit term or condition of their employment;
• employees' submission to or rejection of this conduct is used as the basis for employment decisions that affect them; or
• this conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with employees' work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment for them.

If employment opportunities or benefits are granted because of an employee's submission to an employer's sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, the employer can be liable for unlawful sex discrimination against other qualified employees who were denied those opportunities or benefits.

It is also unlawful for anyone to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce another person to commit sexual harassment; obstruct or prevent another person from complying with the sexual harassment prohibitions or any related orders; or try to commit these acts or other unlawful acts under the prohibitions.

The Maine Human Rights Commission advises employers to take steps to prevent unlawful sexual harassment, such as affirmatively raising the subject, expressing strong disapproval, developing appropriate sanctions, informing employees of their right to raise the issue and how to raise it, and developing methods to sensitize all concerned parties.

Fair employment practices law: Effective Oct. 1, 2019, employers can't engage in harassment of an employee, including harassment based on sex. [Note: The Maryland Commission on Civil Rights considers sexual harassment to be prohibited under the fair employment practices law.]

Massachusetts

Employers and their agents can't subject employees to sexual harassment. Employers must promote a workplace free of sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment means sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

• submission to or rejection of such advances, requests, or conduct is an explicit or implicit term or condition of employment or basis for employment decisions; or
• such advances, requests, or conduct have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an employee's work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating, or sexually offensive work environment.

Employers are encouraged to conduct an education and training program on sexual harassment prevention for new employees within one year after they start employment.

Employers also are encouraged to conduct additional training for new supervisory and managerial employees within one year after they start employment. This training should include their specific responsibilities and the procedures they should follow to ensure immediate, appropriate corrective action in addressing sexual harassment complaints.

Employers also are encouraged to conduct additional training for new supervisory and managerial employees within one year after they start employm

Employers can't discriminate against employees and applicants based on sex. Discrimination based on sex includes sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct or communications of a sexual nature where:

• submission to such conduct or communications is explicitly or implicitly made a term or condition for obtaining employment;
• a person's submission to or rejection of such conduct or communications is used as a factor in decisions affecting the person's employment;
• such conduct or communications have the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with a person's employment; or
• such conduct or communications have the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Mississippi

Harassment based on sex is prohibited. Sexual harassment means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

• submission to this conduct is made an explicit or implicit term or condition of employment;
• employees' and applicants' submission to or rejection of this conduct is a basis for employment decisions that affect them; or

In determining whether conduct constitutes sexual harassment, the Missouri Commission on Human Rights looks at the nature of the sexual advances, the context of the conduct, and other circumstances.

• unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance; or

Fair employment practices law: [Note: The Nevada Equal Rights Commission considers sexual harassment to be a form of sex discrimination.]

New Hampshire

Sexual harassment is prohibited as a form of sex discrimination. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature if:

• submission to this conduct is an explicit or implicit term or condition of employment;
• submission to or rejection of this conduct is the basis of employment decisions;or
• this conduct unreasonably interferes with employees' work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.

Employers can't aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce anyone to engage in sexual harassment or try to do so. They also can't obstruct or prevent anyone's compliance with the sexual harassment prohibitions or related orders.

[Note: New Jersey fair employment practices law prohibits harassment based sex, although sexual harassment isn't specifically mentioned in the law. According to the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights, sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual relations, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Quid pro quo harassment occurs when employers or their agents implicitly or explicitly try to make submission to sexual demands a condition of employment. Hostile work environment harassment occurs when employees are subject to sexual, abusive, or offensive conduct because of their gender and this conduct is severe or pervasive enough to make a reasonable person believe that employment conditions have changed and the working environment has become hostile or abusive; the conduct doesn't have to be sexual in nature and doesn't have to involve physical contact.]

Nondisclosure agreements (effective March 18, 2019): Any provision in an employment contract or settlement agreement that has the purpose or effect of concealing the details of a harassment claim is unenforceable against a current or former employee who is a party to the contract or agreement. Such provisions also are unenforceable against an employer if the current or former employee publicly reveals details of the claim that are sufficient to make the employer reasonably identifiable. Every settlement agreement resolving a harassment claim by an employee against an employer must comply with the notification requirements for such agreements (see “Notification Requirements” below). [Note: The fair employment practices law's provisions on nondisclosure agreements apply to contracts and agreements entered into, renewed, modified, or amended on or after March 18, 2019 (2019 N.J. Laws 39 (S.B.121), § 6). They don't prohibit employers from requiring employees to sign noncompetition agreements or agreements prohibiting employees from disclosing proprietary information (2019 N.J. Laws 39 (S.B.121), § 2).]

Waivers: Employers can't require employees and applicants to waive any of the protections provided by the fair employment practices law. Effective March 18, 2019, any provision in an employment contract that waives any substantive or procedural right or remedy regarding a harassment claim is unenforceable. Effective March 18, 2019, such rights and remedies under the fair employment practices law, or any other statute or case law, also can't be prospectively waived. [Note: The fair employment practices law's provisions on waivers apply to employment contracts entered into, renewed, modified, or amended on or after March 18, 2019, excluding collective bargaining agreements (2019 N.J. Laws 39 (S.B.121), §§ 1, 6).]

Sexual harassment is prohibited as a form of sex discrimination. Sexual harassment means unwanted or repeated physical or verbal acts that are sexual in nature, including sexual advances, sexual conduct, verbal or nonverbal sexual suggestions, sexual ridicule, or sexual innuendo for the purpose of affecting employees'status related to compensation or terms and conditions of employment.  N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-1-7; N.M. Code R. 9.1.1.7

Fair employment practices law: Sexual harassment of employees and applicants is prohibited as a form of sex discrimination. Effective Oct. 11, 2019, harassing conduct is unlawful when it subjects a person to inferior terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based on membership in one or more protected classes, regardless of whether it is “severe or pervasive”as defined in legal precedent applied to harassment claims.

No person (as defined in N.Y. Exec. Law § 292)can aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce unlawful discriminatory acts or try to do so. 

Interns: Employers can't subject interns to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

• submission to or rejection of this conduct is used as the basis for employment decisions that affect them; or
• this conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with their work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Employers also can't subject interns to unwelcome harassment based on their sex, where this harassment has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with their work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Interns are people who perform work for employers for training purposes under the following circumstances:employers aren't committed to hire them at the end of their training period;

• their work provides or supplements training that might enhance their employability and provides experience for their benefit; and
• their work doesn't displace regular employees and is performed under the close supervision of existing staff.

Nonemployees: An employer can't permit the sexual harassment of nonemployees in its workplace.

Employers must provide sexual harassment prevention training to all employees on an annual basis.

Employers can use the New York State Department of Labor's model training program, or their own training program if it meets or exceeds the department's minimum standards. Effective August 12, 2019, employers must provide employees, at the time of hiring and at every annual training, with any information presented at the training in English and in each employee's specified primary language. If the state labor department does not have a template of the model training program in an employee's primary language, the employer may comply with this requirement by providing the information in English.

Employers are not liable for errors or omissions in the non-English portion of the department's template.

The training program must be interactive and include:• an explanation of sexual harassment, consistent with department-issued guidance;

• examples of conduct that would constitute unlawful sexual harassment;
• information about federal and state laws regarding sexual harassment and remedies available to victims of sexual harassment;
• information about employees' right to pursue remedies for sexual harassment;
• information about all available forums for adjudicating sexual harassment complaints;and
• information addressing supervisors'conduct and responsibilities regarding sexual harassment.

[Note: All employees must complete initial sexual harassment prevention training before Oct. 9, 2019.]

North Carolina

North dakota.

• substantially interferes with an employee's work performance; or
• creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by the fair employment practices law.

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when:

• submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment;
• submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or
• such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

Ohio Rev. Code 4112.02; Ohio Admin. Code § 4115-5-05

• makes submission to requests for sexual favors or sexual advances a term or condition of employment;
• unreasonably interferes with employees' work performance; or

The Oklahoma Office of Civil Rights Enforcement considers the totality of the circumstances, such as the nature and context in which the alleged incidents occurred, on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment.

• makes submission to a sexual advance a term or condition of employment;
• makes submission to or rejection of a sexual advance the basis of employment decisions; or
• is sufficiently severe or pervasive to cause unreasonable interference with work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

The standard for determining whether sexual harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment is whether a reasonable person would perceive the situation in the same way as the complaining employee.

Nondisclosure agreements (operative October 1, 2020) : For information about nondisclosure agreement restrictions that apply generally to prohibited discrimination under the fair employment practices law, including sexual assault, see “Types of Prohibited Discrimination” in Oregon Equal Employment Opportunity.

Pennsylvania

The Human Relations Commission considers the totality of the circumstances, such as the nature and context in which the alleged incidents occurred, on a case-by-case basis in determining whether the alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment.

Puerto Rico

Sexual harassment is prohibited as a form of sex discrimination. It can consist of any undesired sexual advances, demands for sexual favors or other verbal or physical behavior that is sexual in nature or conducted through any means of communication. Such conduct is deemed to be unlawful sexual harassment when:

• submission to the conduct becomes, implicitly or explicitly, a term or condition of employment;
• submission to or rejection of the conduct becomes the basis for employment decisions;
• the conduct interferes unreasonably with work performance; or
• the conduct creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, §§ 155, 155b

No territory statutory or regulatory provisions apply generally to private-sector employment.

Rhode Island

Fair employment practices law: Harassment based on sex violates the fair employment practices law. Sexual harassment is unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors or any other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

• an individual's submission to such advances, requests, or conduct is explicitly or implicitly made a term or condition of employment;
• an individual's submission to or rejection of such advances, requests, or conduct is used as the basis for employment decisions that affect them; or
• such advances, requests, or conduct have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Employers should take all steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment from occurring, such as affirmatively raising the subject, expressing strong disapproval, developing appropriate sanctions, informing employees of their right to raise and how to raise the subject, and developing methods to sensitize all relevant parties.

Workplace harassment law: Employers must promote a workplace that is free of sexual harassment and must adopt a policy prohibiting sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is defined in the same manner as the fair employment practices law.

Workplace harassment law: Employers are encouraged to conduct an education and training program on sexual harassment prevention for new employees within one year after their employment starts. At a minimum, this program should provide the information that must be included in the required employer policy against sexual harassment.

Employers also are encouraged to conduct additional training for new supervisors and managers within one year after their employment starts. At a minimum, this training should:

• provide the information that must be included in the required employer policy against sexual harassment;
• identify supervisors' and managers' specific responsibilities regarding sexual harassment; and
• identify the steps they should take to ensure immediate and appropriate corrective action in addressing sexual harassment complaints.

South Carolina

South dakota.

Fair employment practices law: [Note: The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that sexual harassment is prohibited by the fair employment practices law (Campbell v. Fla. Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26 (1996); Parker v. Warren Cnty. Util. Dist., 2 S.W.3d 170 (1999)). The Tennessee Human Rights Commission also considers harassment based on sex to be a form of prohibited discrimination under the law.]

Nondisclosure agreements: Employers can't require employees and applicants to enter into or renew nondisclosure agreements regarding workplace sexual harassment as a condition of employment. [Note: This prohibition applies to nondisclosure agreements entered into or renewed on or after May 15, 2018.]

[Note: Effective September 1, 2021, this summary is affected by 2021 Texas Gen. Laws S.B. 45, as reported in the State L&E Developments Tracker. Editors will update the summary to reflect the new law.]

[Note: The Texas Supreme Court has held that sexual harassment of employees is prohibited by the fair employment practices law (Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2010)).]

Interns: Sexual harassment of unpaid interns is prohibited.

Sexual harassment means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

• submission to such advances, requests, or conduct is explicitly or implicitly made a term or condition of the internship;
• submission to or rejection of such advances, requests, or conduct is used as a basis for decisions affecting the internship; or
• such advances, requests, or conduct have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with interns' work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Unpaid interns are interns:

• whose internship is similar to training that would occur in an educational environment, even though it involves employer operations or performing work for employers;
• whose internship experience is for their own benefit;
• who don't displace regular employees, but work under the close supervision of existing staff;
• whose internship activities don't provide any immediate advantage to employers and occasionally might impede employer operations; and
• who aren't entitled to wages for time spent in their internship nor a job at the end of their internship.

Sexual harassment is prohibited as a form of discrimination. Sexual harassment means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

• submitting to this conduct is an explicit or implied term or condition of employment;
• submitting to or rejecting this conduct is a basis for employment decisions; or
• this conduct unreasonably interferes with employees' work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Employers have an obligation to ensure a workplace free of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. It means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

• submission to this conduct is explicitly or implicitly made a term or condition of employment;
• submission to or rejection of this conduct is used as a factor in employment decisions;
• this conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with employees' work performance; or

Employers are encouraged to conduct an education and training program on sexual harassment prevention for new employees within one year after their employment starts and for all employees annually. At a minimum, this program should cover the information outlined in Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 495h.

Employers also are encouraged to conduct additional training for new supervisory and managerial employees within one year after their employment starts. At a minimum, this training should cover the information outlined in Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 495h, their specific responsibilities, and actions they must take to ensure immediate, appropriate corrective action in addressing sexual harassment complaints.

The Vermont attorney general's office can require employers to provide an education and training program on sexual harassment prevention to all employees annually for up to three years if it determines, after an inspection, that this program is necessary to ensure that their workplace is free from sexual harassment. Additionally or as an alternative, the attorney general can require these employers to conduct an anonymous working-climate survey annually for up to three years. At a minimum, the program:

• for all employees must cover the information outlined in Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 495h; and
• for supervisory and managerial employees must cover the information outlined in Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 495h, their specific responsibilities, and actions they must take to ensure immediate, appropriate corrective action in addressing sexual harassment complaints.

Fair employment practices law: [Note: The Washington Supreme Court has held that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under the fair employment practices law (Glasgow v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 693 P.2d 708 (Wash. 1985)). The Washington State Human Rights Commission also considers sexual harassment to be a form of prohibited discrimination under the fair employment practices law.]

Isolated employees: Effective July 28, 2019, covered employers (except for contracted security guard companies) must provide a panic button to each isolated employee. A panic button is an emergency contact device carried by an employee that can be used to summon immediate on-site assistance from another employee, security guard, or representative of the employer. The Washington Department of Labor and Industries will publish guidance for employers with fifty or fewer employees to assist them in complying with the law. [Note: Covered hotels and motels with sixty or more rooms must comply with these provisions by Jan. 1, 2020. All other covered employers must comply with the provisions by Jan. 1, 2021.]

Fair employment practices law: Isolated employees: Effective July 28, 2019, covered employers must provide sexual harassment prevention training to managers, supervisors, and employees to:

• prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment in the workplace;
• prevent sex discrimination in the workplace; and
• educate the workforce regarding protections for employees who report violations of state or federal law.

[Note: Covered hotels and motels with sixty or more rooms must comply with these provisions by Jan. 1, 2020. All other covered employers must comply with the provisions by Jan. 1, 2021.]

West Virginia

The Human Rights Commission considers the totality of the circumstances, such as the nature and context in which the alleged incidents occurred, on a case-by-case basis in determining whether the alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment.

The commission also examines whether the sexual harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive, including whether it involved:

• unwanted physical touching,
• offensive or threatening verbal abuse, and
• unwelcome and consistent sexual innuendo or physical contact.

The frequency of unwelcome and offensive encounters is also taken into account, as well as whether other employees suffered harassment.

Hostile or physically aggressive behavior that includes unwanted sexual conduct also can be considered sexual harassment if it was a form of gender-based discrimination.

Employers and their agents, including managers and supervisors, are prohibited from sexually harassing employees and applicants. Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct that involves sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, physical contact of a sexual nature or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment; it includes conduct directed by a person at another person of the same or opposite sex.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that includes:

• implicitly or explicitly making submission to sexual harassment a term or condition of employment;
• making employment decisions based in any part on employees' submission to or rejection of sexual harassment;
• permitting sexual harassment that interferes substantially with employees' work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment; and
• unwelcome verbal or physical conduct directed at employees because of their gender that creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment or interferes substantially with such employees' work performance.

Sexual harassment interferes substantially with employees' work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment if a reasonable person would consider the conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive.

DO NOT DELETE - NCSL Search Page Data

Related resources, workforce supports: improving maternal health outcomes, occupational licensing legislation database, undergrads are unionizing, in a sign of labor’s resurgence.

Student workers at two major state university systems have voted to unionize this school year.

Contact NCSL

For more information on this topic, use this form to reach NCSL staff.

• What is your role? Legislator Legislative Staff Other
• Is this a press or media inquiry? No Yes
• Admin Email

Sexual Harassment

You should be able to feel comfortable in your place of work or learning. If you are being sexually harassed, you can report it to the authorities at your job or school.

What is sexual harassment?

Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature in the workplace or learning environment, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ). Sexual harassment does not always have to be specifically about sexual behavior or directed at a specific person. For example, negative comments about women as a group may be a form of sexual harassment.

Although sexual harassment laws do not usually cover teasing or offhand comments, these behaviors can also be upsetting and have a negative emotional effect.

What does sexual harassment look like?

Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances. The harasser can identify with any gender and have any relationship to the victim, including being a direct manager, indirect supervisor, coworker, teacher, peer, or colleague.

Some forms of sexual harassment include:

• Making conditions of employment or advancement dependent on sexual favors, either explicitly or implicitly.
• Physical acts of sexual assault.
• Requests for sexual favors.
• Verbal harassment of a sexual nature, including jokes referring to sexual acts or sexual orientation.
• Unwanted touching or physical contact.
• Unwelcome sexual advances.
• Discussing sexual relations/stories/fantasies at work, school, or in other inappropriate places.
• Feeling pressured to engage with someone sexually.
• Exposing oneself or performing sexual acts on oneself.
• Unwanted sexually explicit photos, emails, or text messages.

What is the difference between sexual harassment and sexual assault? What about sexual misconduct?

Sexual harassment is a broad term, including many types of unwelcome verbal and physical sexual attention. Sexual assault refers to sexual contact or behavior, often physical, that occurs without the consent of the victim. Sexual harassment generally violates civil laws—you have a right to work or learn without being harassed—but in many cases is not a criminal act, while sexual assault usually refers to acts that are criminal. Some forms of sexual assault include:

• Penetration of the victim’s body, also known as rape.
• Attempted rape.
• Forcing a victim to perform sexual acts, such as oral sex or penetration of the perpetrator’s body.
• Fondling or unwanted sexual touching.

Sexual misconduct is a non-legal term used informally to describe a broad range of behaviors, which may or may not involve harassment. For example, some companies prohibit sexual relationships between coworkers, or between an employee and their boss, even if the relationship is consensual.

Where can sexual harassment occur?

Sexual harassment can occur in the workplace or learning environment, like a school or university. It can happen in many different scenarios, including after-hours conversations, exchanges in the hallways, and non-office settings of employees or peers.

What can I do when I witness sexual harassment?

You may have heard the term  bystander intervention  to describe stepping in to help if you see someone who might be in danger or at risk for sexual assault. Bystander intervention can also be a helpful strategy if you witness sexual harassment. You don’t have to be a hero to make a positive impact in someone’s life, and you can intervene in a way that fits your comfort level and is appropriate for the situation. If you choose to step in, you may be able to give the person being harassed a chance to get to a safe place or leave the situation. Below are some of the steps you can take if you see someone being sexually harassed—just remember to C.A.R.E., and of course, keep your own safety in mind at all times.

• Create a distraction.  Do what you can to interrupt the harassment, or distract those taking part in the harassment. But remember to make sure that you aren’t putting yourself in danger by doing this. If someone seems like they could become violent, do not draw their attention.
• Ask directly.  Talk directly with the person who is being harassed. If they are being harassed at work or school, offer to accompany them anytime they have to meet with the harasser. If a friend is worried about walking alone to their car at night, offer to walk with them.
• Refer to an authority.  The safest way to intervene for both you and the person being harassed may be to bring in an authority figure. You can talk to another employee, security guard, RA in your dorm, bartender, or bouncer, and they will often be willing to step in.
• Enlist others.  It can be hard to step in alone, especially if you are worried about your own safety or if you don’t think you will be able to help on your own. It may be a good idea to enlist the help of a friend or another bystander.

What are some effects of sexual harassment?

Experiencing sexual harassment may cause some survivors to face emotional, physical, or mental health concerns. Some of them might include:

For more resources and information from RAINN about sexual harassment, visit That's Harassment .

Emotional effects:

• Humiliation
• Powerlessness and loss of control

Mental health effects:

• Panic attacks
• Difficulty concentrating
• Loss of motivation
• Substance abuse
• Suicidal ideation

Physical effects:

• Increased stress levels
• Sleep disturbances
• Eating disturbances

Where can I learn more about sexual harassment?

• Visit the  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)  to learn more about sexual harassment laws and your rights in the workplace.
• If you are a minor, you can learn more at  Youth at Work , EEOC’s website for youth in the workforce.

To speak with someone who is trained to help, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 800.656.HOPE (4673) or chat online at  online.rainn.org .

Related Content

Sexual exploitation by helping professionals.

Sexual exploitation by a helping professional is a serious violation of your trust and, in many cases, the law.

Sexual Assault

Sexual assault can take many different forms and be defined in different ways, but one thing remains the same: it’s never the victim’s fault.

Learn more about stalking behaviors to help you notice them before they escalate—and take steps to protect yourself.

Subscribe to Policy News

More than 87 cents of every $1 goes to helping survivors and preventing sexual violence..

Add a bookmark to get started

• Employment alert: EEOC issues final guidance on workplace harassment

EEOC issues final guidance on workplace harassment

On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published its final guidance on workplace harassment, which took effect immediately. The new guidance supersedes earlier agency policy and enforcement guidance, and addresses areas such as gender identity, virtual work environments, and systemic discrimination. The final guidance largely tracks the proposed guidance issued in October 2023, with some additions (including more hypothetical examples) and clarifications.

The EEOC also issued additional educational resources, including a “ Summary of Key Provisions ” document, questions and answers for employees , and a fact sheet for small businesses .

While the new guidance does not have the force of law, it provides a roadmap for how the EEOC will investigate harassment complaints and enforce Title VII. Accordingly, employers are encouraged to review their policies, procedures, and training based on the final guidance, while monitoring legal challenges.

Notable new guidance for certain protected classes under Title VII

The guidance makes clear that not only does Title VII prohibit overt discrimination based on epithets or similar conduct, but it also prohibits harassment based on stereotypes or “traits or characteristics linked to an individual’s race,” such as “name, cultural dress, accent or manner of speech.” This also extends to harassment based on physical characteristics, including appearance standards such as “harassment based on hair textures or hairstyles commonly associated with specific racial groups.”

The guidance clarifies that while sometimes related to harassment based on race or national origin, color-based harassment due to an individual’s pigmentation, complexion, or skin shade or tone is independently covered by Title VII. The guidance provides, as an example, a supervisor harassing “Black employees with darker complexions” but not those “with lighter skin tones.”

Pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions

The final guidance affirms the EEOC’s view that sex-based harassment includes harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, including lactation. It can also include harassment based on a woman’s reproductive decisions, such as decisions about contraception or abortion.

Sexual orientation and gender identity

Citing to the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (affirming Title VII protections for employees based on sexual orientation), the final guidance provides protection against sex-based harassment, including harassment based on “sexual orientation and gender identity.” According to the EEOC, examples include harassment based on a person’s divergence from societal gender stereotypes; outing (disclosure of an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity without permission); “repeated and intentional” misgendering, such as through the deliberate misuse an employee’s preferred pronouns; and denial of access to a sex-segregated bathroom or facility consistent with the individual’s gender.

The protections based on gender identity and sexual orientation reflect the most significant expansion in the EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII, and are expected to meet the most resistance, with litigation to block the EEOC from enforcing these provisions already pending.

Genetic information

The new guidance clarifies that the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) prohibits unlawful harassment based on an individual’s or an individual’s family member’s genetic test or family medical history. As examples, the EEOC notes that harassment based on genetic information could include harassing an employee because they carry the BRCA gene, or because the employee’s mother recently experienced a severe case of norovirus, which resulted in overnight hospitalization.

Retaliation

The final guidance addresses the concept of “retaliatory harassment,” noting that such harassment can be challenged even if it is not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment by creating a hostile work environment. According to the EEOC, equal employment opportunity laws’ antiretaliation provisions protect against a broader range of behaviors – “they forbid anything that might deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity.”

Cross-bases issues

The final guidance clarifies intraclass and intersectional harassment, both of which are actionable under Title VII. Intraclass harassment occurs when one employee harasses another based on a protected characteristic, even though both employees are in the protected class. For instance, the guidance provides the example of a Black manager using a racial epithet to describe other Black employees.

Intersectional harassment occurs when an employee is harassed for two intersecting protected characteristics – an example given is when a 51-year-old female worker is told by a supervisor she is having a “menopausal moment.” Such a remark is simultaneously targeting the female employee’s status as a female and as a person over the age of 40.

Perceived protected class

The EEOC guidance affirms that actionable harassment may occur based upon the perception that an employee is a member of a protected class, even if the employee is not actually a member of that class. For instance, the EEOC proffers as examples “harassment of a Hispanic person because the harasser believes the individual is Pakistani in national origin” and “harassment of a Sikh man wearing a turban because the harasser thinks he is Muslim.”

Associational discrimination

The final guidance makes clear that “associational discrimination” is also covered by Title VII. Associational discrimination may arise from harassment of an individual because they associate with someone in a different protected class, or because they associate with someone in the same protected class. One example would be harassing a “White employee because his spouse is Black.” Notably, the EEOC makes clear that harassment does not require a close relationship, such as a family member, to give rise to a claim, but rather any association could suffice.

Digital and virtual technology

The final guidance confirms that the definition of work environment includes the virtual workspace ( eg , email, instant messaging, video calls) and describes how out-of-work electronic communications may contribute to a hostile work environment. Importantly, the final guidance clarifies that such out-of-work conduct must target the employer or its employees; social media postings on their own, without targeting the employer or employees, would not contribute to a hostile work environment.

Employer internal procedures

The proposed guidance detailed the “minimum” features necessary for an anti-harassment policy, complaint process, and training to be effective. While the final guidance avoids using the term “minimum,” it otherwise remains consistent with the proposed guidance. Employers ultimately are required to take reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment. Key steps to demonstrating reasonable care include having a broadly disseminated policy, establishing an effective complaint process, providing regular training to ensure employees and supervisors and managers understand their rights and responsibilities, and monitoring the workplace to ensure adherence to the employer’s policy.

Interplay between statutory harassment prohibitions and other rights

The EEOC noted that many comments addressed free speech and religion-based rights issues, and it acknowledged that the application of the EEOC statutes may implicate other rights or requirements, including those under the US Constitution and other federal laws ( eg , Religious Freedom Restoration Act). The EEOC noted that it will carefully consider the facts presented in charges and the interaction of Title VII and the rights to free speech and exercise of religion. It also committed to enhance its administrative procedures and webpages to assist employers with potential defenses, including religious defenses.

If you have questions about the EEOC’s new guidance or discrimination or harassment issues, please reach out to the authors or your DLA Piper contact.

Related insights

EEOC publishes final rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

17 May 2024 . 7 minute read

DOL makes major changes to QPAM exemption through final amendment

30 April 2024 . 18 minute read

It takes three to keep a secret: Top points for corporate trade secret protection...

29 April 2024 . 5 minute read

Related capabilities

• Capabilities
• Find an office

DLA Piper is a global law firm operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. For further information about these entities and DLA Piper's structure, please refer the Legal Notices  page of this website. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising.

© 2024 DLA Piper

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to DLA Piper or the independent DLA Piper Relationship firms will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others, may not receive a response, and do not create a lawyer-client relationship with DLA Piper or any of the DLA Piper Relationship firms. Please do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our lawyers do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly permitted to do so.

Sexual harassment rife in retail work

Professor Rae Cooper

Sexual harassment is pervasive and persistent in retail work, with young women most at risk, as revealed in a new report by researchers from the Australian Centre for Gender Equality and Inclusion @ Work published by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS). 

Up to half of women and one in four men working in retail have experienced sexual harassment (AHRC 2022) including physical contact, sexually suggestive comments and jokes, intrusive questions about their private life or appearance, and staring or leering. 

The report, “Just another day in retail”: Understanding and addressing workplace sexual harassment in the Australian retail industry , found young women under the age of 25 are highly targeted and often subjected to multiple forms of sexual harassment. 

Professor Rae Cooper, director of the Australian Centre for Gender Equality and Inclusion @ Work , said employers have a legal duty to prevent harm to workers from sexual harassment. 

“These are not isolated incidents, this is happening every day across this large industry, and young people – especially young women – are copping the brunt of it," Professor Cooper said.

“The retail industry is a key national employer of young people, and these workplaces have a duty of care to protect their inexperienced workers who are often working their first job. Sexual harassment doesn’t just come from customers – peers and managers are often perpetrators. It is pervasive.” 

The researchers drew upon four existing surveys, conducted 15 interviews with experienced industry insiders and held 12 focus groups with 56 retail workers and managers. Their findings show comprehensive change is needed to make retail workplaces safe for staff. 

Many staff report feeling unsure about how to report sexual harassment, and those who do are often dissatisfied with the process. 

Retailers must improve in areas including workplace reporting mechanisms, data collection in relation to incidents, training of staff and managers, and communicating outcomes to staff.   

Women under 25 are most at risk of sexual harassment at work from customers, colleagues and managers. Pictures: Adobe Stock

Tessa Boyd-Caine, CEO of ANROWS said: “Sexual harassment in retail is common, normalised, and harmful. This is part of the broader social environment that enables violence against women and children and as such, sexual harassment needs to be understood clearly and taken seriously. 

“There will be no one-size-fits-all solution to tackle this widespread problem, but as it stands, employers lack the necessary tools to action their responsibilities to keep their staff safe and free from sexual harassment. Enhanced reporting processes are imperative to ensure victim-survivors feel safe and empowered to come forward.” 

Gerard Dwyer, National Secretary of the SDA said: “Sexual harassment is never acceptable – not at home, not at play, not at work. Victims can use their company’s formal complaints process, speak to their union, the SDA, document it themselves, or speak to a government body such as the Fair Work Ombudsman. 

“There is significant variation in employer policies and the quantity, frequency, and types of sexual harassment training provided. Solving this requires an industry-based approach with union engagement.” 

“We acknowledge the independent research teams for providing a safe space to have an open dialogue. Now it’s up to the retail sector to take this report, build on it, and create an environment where our staff don't have to come to work in fear of sexual harassment and violence," Mr Zahra said.

“This report provides a strong foundation for ways we can better combat sexual harassment in the workplace. This will include strategies informed by data, tailoring education for employees, and upskilling and empowering supervisors and managers to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace.” 

Information about workplace sexual harassment and how to make a complaint is available on the Fair Work Ombudsman’s website . 

Declaration  

This research was produced by the Australian Centre for Gender Equality and Inclusion @ Work and funded by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) with funding from the Australian Government and the Australian state and territory governments. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. 

Media contact

Harrison vesey.

• +61 479 198 803
• [email protected]

Related articles

Sexual harassment and customer abuse rife in retail, sexual harassment can't be part of the job.

Study finds 'pervasive' culture of sexual harassment of Australian retail workers and few places to turn for support

As a 17-year-old regional NSW student, Hannah was excited to start work at a major retail chain after school.

"The store that I worked in was a really great store. I loved all my coworkers," she told the ABC by the beach near her home.

It was only her second job and she enjoyed learning new skills about customer service and how to make a sale.

But soon after starting work at the store, she began to experience a dark side to the industry that new research shows is far too common.

"Everyone I knew that worked there had an experience with being sexually harassed at work," she said.

"From anything as small as just awkward comments that customers would make — or as severe as some people who I worked with actually being stalked by customers."

'Another day in retail'

A new study by University of Sydney researchers has found what many retail workers already know to be true: that sexual harassment in the industry is pervasive.

"Retail workers describe sexual harassment as basically being part of the job — so that's the title of our report," said Rae Cooper, a professor of gender, work and employment relations who prepared the report with her team.

Professor Cooper's report, 'Just another day in retail': Understanding and addressing workplace sexual harassment in the Australian retail industry, found that sexual harassment in retail is common and normalised for workers. 

In 86 per cent of cases, the perpetrators were men, and ranged from managers and colleagues to customers. 

Researchers conducted focus groups and interviews with workers and found young women working in retail were the highest risk group.

"I think it's a real shame that we are sending young people into environments that are risky and dangerous to them," Professor Cooper said.

Troubling numbers

The report also drew on datasets that showed in the past five years half of women and a quarter of men in retail experienced sexual harassment and in more than a third of cases the customer was the perpetrator.

The research found the most common form of sexual harassment was sexually suggestive comments and jokes (62 per cent), followed by intrusive questions about private life or physical appearance (45 per cent), and staring or leering (41 per cent). 

Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault was reported by 6 per cent of people.

"My own children work in retail and it does make you pause for thought, when you're listening to research subjects talking about an experience that the kids come home and talk to you about as well," Professor Cooper said.

Customer-first culture

It's been a few years since Hannah worked at the store where she was sexually harassed, but she still remembers feeling powerless and unsure of how to respond to the behaviour.

"As a 17-year-old starting working there, I had never experienced anything like that before, I just felt completely at a loss to even say something and speak up for myself in the first place."

Hannah said she wasn't equipped as a young teenage employee to navigate uncomfortable conversations or deal with customers who were acting inappropriately.

"I felt really powerless," she said.

"Because if I said something, then I might lose the sale and then not made my budget. And if I'm not meeting my budget, then I might not get shifts the next week. And that's really scary.

"It's very tricky because the whole point of customer service is to build a relationship with the customer so they feel comfortable and happy and if they're comfortable and happy, then they'll let go of their money a little easier."

Professor Cooper said that rang true with what her research - which was funded by the Australian National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety - found.

"We hear the term, 'the customer's always right', and that can sometimes really influence the way that customers treat retail workers, but also the way that retail workers feel that they can react and the way that they can make themselves feel safe."

Legal protections

Having experienced sexual harassment in retail makes Hannah feels "grateful" her experience wasn't as bad as some of her colleagues.

"It like sort of plays on your mind a little bit of like, 'oh, what could I have done like differently to prevent that situation from happening'."

But Professor Cooper said Australian employers are legally obligated to show they have taken reasonably practical steps to ensure their employees are safe from harm and safe from harassment at work.

"Ultimately, individuals are responsible for their behaviour — if people are behaving badly and sexually harassing staff in workplaces, that's their responsibility, she said.

"But there's an extra layer when it comes to workplace responsibility so regardless of who perpetrates the behaviour, if it happens to a staff member in a workplace, the employer has real liability there and at law has a responsibility to deal with that behaviour appropriately and if they possibly can to head it off."

Professor Cooper said an industry-wide approach is needed to tackle the issue "and that will involve the major employers, the union and, possibly, government coming together to address this problem".

Training needed

Australian Retailers Association CEO Paul Zahra said while he wasn't shocked by the findings of the report, he was disappointed and concerned by them.

"It's a huge problem of great concern, we're really motivated now to see how we can turn this into action," he told the ABC.

He said the association was preparing a training course for retail workers on sexual harassment but acknowledged the industry needed to do more.

"The findings from the report tell us that we should be collecting data better in store, really making sure that we've got enough information around sexual harassment."

Hannah said providing staff with training on what to do if they're being sexually harassed and where to report it should be included with other standard training modules such as workplace injuries and safety procedures.

"Where I worked, we had quite a bit of training from the company, in regards to our product knowledge, how to make a saIe. I can't remember any training that I did that went through how to deal with customers that are making you feel uncomfortable." 

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

'legal discrimination against young people': unions to push for scrapping of junior wages.

'They brush past you and grab you': The harassment retail workers face

Shoppers told to 'cool it' as retail workers report verbal, physical abuse

Why you should be nice to retail staff

• Retail Industry
• Sexual Offences

Feeling unsafe? Find support services   emergency? call 000

• FONT SIZE A+ / A-

Find the right resources for your needs.

To help you find the right information we have collated key information relevant to the different members of our community. Please select the group that you relate to most from the list on the right.

• Government official or policy-maker
• Peak or advocacy body
• Practitioner
• Victim/survivor of domestic, family, or sexual violence
• Media representative
• I'm not sure

I'M INTERESTED IN

• Statistics: prevalence and community attitudes
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
• Culturally and linguistically diverse communities
• Women with disabilities
• Sexual violence and assault
• Children, young people and parenting
• Health, justice and systems-wide responses
• LGBTQ communities
• Perpetrator interventions

Our research

Violence against women and children affects everybody. It impacts on the health, wellbeing and safety of a significant proportion of Australians throughout all states and territories and places an enormous burden on the nation’s economy across family and community services, health and hospitals, income-support and criminal justice systems.

ANROWS Research

• Australian National Research Agenda
• ANROWS Research Grants
• Research program
• Core research
• Fourth Action Plan research
• National Community Attitudes Survey
• ANROWS Research Fund
• Action research and evaluation
• Sexual Harassment Research Program
• Perpetrator interventions research

anrows publications

• Publications suite
• Research to policy and practice papers
• Research reports
• Insights and special collections
• State of knowledge papers

RESEARCH DATABASES

• The ANROWS Evidence Portal
• ANROWS Digital Library
• Register of active research

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

• News and events

ANROWS hosts events as part of its knowledge transfer and exchange work, including public lectures, workshops and research launches. Details of upcoming ANROWS activities and news are available from the list on the right.

• Media releases
• Subscribe to our mailing list
• ANROWS & The Healing Foundation partnership: WorkUP Queensland

About ANROWS

ANROWS was established by the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments of Australia to produce, disseminate and assist in applying evidence for policy and practice addressing violence against women and their children.

ABOUT ANROWS

• ANROWS Board
• Stakeholders
• Reconciliation

To support the take-up of evidence, ANROWS offers a range of resources developed from research to support practitioners and policy-makers in delivering evidence-based interventions.

• Webinar program
• The Australian policy context
• Inquiries and submissions
• ANROWS Evidence Portal
• ANROWS Library

This report found that sexual harassment in retail is common, normalised and harmful. It calls for employers and industry stakeholders to prevent and respond to the potential harms, including to employee wellbeing, career progression and earnings, team cohesion, and the success of businesses and the national economy. 

This project was conducted by a team at the University of Sydney led by Professor Rae Cooper and Professor Elizabeth Hill . The project offers insights into the nature and prevalence of sexual harassment in the retail workplace, related organisational policies and training, and how employers and industry stakeholders can improve responses.

The study featured:

• analysis of four large pre-existing datasets
• informant interviews with leaders in the retail industry, including representatives from large employers, retail and industry associations, and retail unions
• focus groups with retail employees and supervisors.

The findings indicate the significance of the problem, with retail workers describing sexual harassment as just “part of the job”. Key findings are as follows:

• Sexual harassment in the retail workplace is experienced by retail workers as routine and unavoidable, influenced by industry norms and narratives such as “the customer is always right”.
• A range of people perpetrate sexual harassment including managers, colleagues and customers.
• Sexual harassment in the retail industry can take different forms, including sexually suggestive comments and jokes (62%), followed by intrusive questions about private life or physical appearance (45%), and staring or leering (41%).
• Certain groups of retail workers are at higher risk of experiencing sexual harassment, including young workers, women, workers living with a disability and gay men.
• The retail industry must improve its organisational policies, training practices and reporting processes to better prevent and respond to workplace sexual harassment.
• Ad hoc, limited and non-standardised data collection constrain effective industry action on sexual harassment.

The report outlines a suite of recommendations targeted at governments, industry, employers and managers, including highlighting the importance of tailored responses for “high-risk” groups.  

Publication details

This work is part of the ANROWS research reports series . ANROWS research reports are in-depth reports on empirical research produced under ANROWS’s research program.

This research was produced under the 2021–2024 ANROWS Sexual Harassment Research Program (SHRP).

RAE COOPER Professor of Gender, Work and Employment Relations, Discipline of Work and Organisational Studies, The University of Sydney Business School Director, Australian Centre for Gender Equality and Inclusion @ Work, The University of Sydney

ELIZABETH HILL Professor of Political Economy, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Sydney Deputy Director, Australian Centre for Gender Equality and Inclusion @ Work, The University of Sydney

SUNEHA SEETAHUL Senior Research Fellow, Australian Centre for Gender Equality and Inclusion @ Work, The University of Sydney

MERAIAH FOLEY Senior Lecturer, Discipline of Work and Organisational Studies, The University of Sydney Business School Academic Member, Australian Centre for Gender Equality and Inclusion @ Work, The University of Sydney

MARNIE HARRIS Research Officer, Australian Centre for Gender Equality and Inclusion @ Work, The University of Sydney

CHARLOTTE HOCK Research Officer, Australian Centre for Gender Equality and Inclusion @ Work, The University of Sydney

AMY TAPSELL Research Officer, Australian Centre for Gender Equality and Inclusion @ Work, The University of Sydney

ISBN: 978-1-922645-87-6 (paperback)

ISBN: 978-1-922645-86-9 (PDF)

Suggested citation

Cooper, R., Hill, E., Seetahul, S., Foley, M., Harris, M., Hock, C., & Tapsell, A. (2024). “Just another day in retail”: Understanding and addressing workplace sexual harassment in the Australian retail industry (Research report, 04/2024). ANROWS.

Subscribe to receive news and updates directly to your inbox.

• Name First Last

Or connect with us

Other items.

‘Just another day in retail’: Study finds sexual harassment rife across industry

Up to one in two women and one in four men working in retail have experienced sexual harassment, according to new research released Friday. 

Researchers from the Australian Centre for Gender Equality and Inclusion @ Work (ACGEIW) published by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (Anrows) concludes sexual harassment is “pervasive and persistent” in retail work with physical contact, sexually suggestive comments and jokes, intrusive questions about their private life or appearance, and staring or leering commonplace. 

The report – Just another day in retail: Understanding and addressing workplace sexual harassment in the Australian retail industry – found that women aged under 25 are the most at risk, often subjected to multiple forms of sexual harassment. 

“These are not isolated incidents,” explains Professor Rae Cooper, director of the ACGEIW. “This is happening every day across this large industry, and young people – especially young women – are copping the brunt of it.”

Cooper says employers are legally bound to prevent harm to workers from sexual harassment. 

“The retail industry is a key national employer of young people, and these workplaces have a duty of care to protect their inexperienced workers who are often working their first job. Sexual harassment doesn’t just come from customers – peers and managers are often perpetrators. It is pervasive.” 

Tessa Boyd-Caine, CEO of Anrows, describes sexual harassment in retail as “common, normalised, and harmful”.

“This is part of the broader social environment that enables violence against women and children and as such, sexual harassment needs to be understood clearly and taken seriously.”

She called on retailers to improve workplace reporting mechanisms, the collection of data relating to incidents, ramp up training of staff and management and communicate outcomes to staff.   

“There will be no one-size-fits-all solution to tackle this widespread problem, but as it stands, employers lack the necessary tools to action their responsibilities to keep their staff safe and free from sexual harassment. Enhanced reporting processes are imperative to ensure victim-survivors feel safe and empowered to come forward.” 

Australian Retailers Association CEO Paul Zahra said described sexual harassment in the workplace as “a significant, ongoing concern for retailers”. 

“We acknowledge the independent research teams for providing a safe space to have an open dialogue. Now it’s up to the retail sector to take this report, build on it, and create an environment where our staff don’t have to come to work in fear of sexual harassment and violence.”

That research drew from four existing surveys, interviews with 15 experienced industry insiders and 12 focus groups including 56 retail workers and managers. The report found that many staff felt unsure about how to report sexual harassment – and those who do are often left dissatisfied with the process. 

Gerard Dwyer, national secretary of the SDA, urged retail workers affected by sexual harassment to document it and use their company’s formal complaints process to report it, speak to their union, or speak to a government body such as the Fair Work Ombudsman . 

Dwyer expressed consent that there is “significant variation” in employer policies and the quantity, frequency, and types of sexual harassment training provided. “Solving this requires an industry-based approach with union engagement.”

Recommended By IR

“Enjoy the journey and be kind”: Strand CEO Felicity McGahan on leadership

Is office gossip really that bad?

Retail appointments of the week

Inside Thankyou’s next evolution

Should Australia add stronger health warning labels to alcohol? 

This is for ir pro members only..

Log in below or subcribe.

By continuing, you agree to Octomedia Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

• Our network

The Sydney Morning Herald

‘i like seeing you bend down’: shocking levels of sexual harassment in retail sector, by jordan baker, save articles for later.

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.

Like most young female retail workers, Rebecca Donaldson is harassed by male customers. “It’s nice watching you; I like seeing you bend down,” the 23-year-old has been told as she pulls products from shelves.

Donaldson feels powerless in the face of “revolting” comments from nameless men, who leer and disappear. They’re the customers upon whom her job depends and who are, as the adage goes, always right. “I thought, ‘that’s just part of the job’,” she said.

Retail worker Rebecca Donaldson, who says she has been the victim of “revolting” comments at work. Credit: Jason South

New research has exposed the extent of sexual harassment in the retail industry, in which vulnerable, young workers are routinely subjected to gendered and sexualised comments from strangers, co-workers and bosses.

“It’s every day; it’s constantly there,” said co-author Rae Cooper, from Sydney University’s Australian Centre for Gender Equity and Inclusion, who analysed data and did in-depth interviews with workers, managers and employers.

Such treatment left workers “feeling vulnerable, feeling unsure about what to do,” said co-author, the centre’s Professor Elizabeth Hill. “Feeling fearful. Because of the structure of the industry, they’re on insecure work, they’re on rosters, on shifts.”

Workers told of watching 15 and 16-year-old girls in their first jobs being sexually harassed, “normally by men,” one said, “much older, sometimes 60-year-olds”. They would be harassed in small spaces without surveillance, such as fitting rooms.

They might sell underwear, and face questions from men such as, “My wife is about your breast size. So what size are you? And do you like the feel of this product on you?” one worker told the researchers.

Yet, as another worker from the sector, which employs one in 10 Australian workers, said, if a customer comes in and says something “gross and sexually suggestive to you”, [reporting] a “nameless, faceless individual … is not going to do anything.”

The harassment was often subtle, involving hard-to-confront behaviour such as leering, staring, hovering or inappropriate but not overly sexual comments. Usually, it was less about sexual desire than exerting power or status.

“That double whammy of being young and female can really lead to these gendered relations of power,” said Hill.

‘A lot of the male customers tend to go after younger female retail workers … [they think] she just has to smile and take it.’ A contributor to the study into sexual harassment of female retail workers

Workers were also harassed by their bosses and co-workers, the report found, yet systems to identify, report, and act upon such behaviour in an industry with high turnover varied widely in quality, frequency and effectiveness between employers.

Data shows one in two women and one in four men working in retail have experienced harassment in the past five years. The most common form was sexually suggestive comments, followed by invasive questions and staring or leering.

One interviewee said they found “a lot of the male customers tend to go after younger female retail workers … [they think], ‘oh if I say something to her, she can’t do anything. She just has to smile and take it’.”

Donaldson, from Melbourne, said she has been sexually harassed by co-workers, who have touched her backside and her breast. “We’ve got training about why it’s important not to sexually harass people, but it’s still happened to me three times,” she said.

Rebecca Donaldson has been harassed by customers in her retail job. Credit: Jason South

The researchers said the report put the retail industry on notice to take action to protect workers, especially as new positive duty laws meant company directors not only had to respond to incidents, but also try to prevent them in the first place.

They called for better data collection and an industry-wide response, which could involve a standard warning to customers about the consequences of harassing staff. It could read, “You’ll get booted out of these premises if you are disrespectful to any of our staff,” said Cooper.

The research was funded by ANROWs, the national research organisation for women’s safety.

Chief executive Tessa Boyd-Caine said retail harassment was part of a broader social environment in which domestic, family and sexual violence continued to cause great harm.

“We need to reflect on the role of power in these abusive relationships,” she said.

“The research shows that prevailing norms, like the belief that “the customer is always right,” or working relationships between managers and more junior staff, may consciously or unconsciously perpetuate imbalances.”

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter .

• Workplace culture

Most Viewed in National

What to do if you are sexually harassed at the workplace

Home     /      Blog  

Sexual harassment can happen to anyone, regardless of age, gender, or occupation. Sexual harassment can occur in any work environment, from a bustling office to a quiet shop. Know your rights, available support, and steps to address workplace sexual harassment.

What is sexual harassment in the workplace?

Sexual harassment is any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that occurs in the workplace.

'Unwelcome conduct' refers to any behaviour that you have not agreed to and that causes you discomfort. Any unwelcome sexual behaviour, even if it happens just once, can be considered sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment is explicitly forbidden and considered a form of unfair discrimination and prohibited on the grounds of sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

What type of behaviour can be considered sexual harassment?

Sexual harassment includes any behaviour of a sexual nature, whether physical, verbal, or non-verbal.

Physical behaviour:  This involves any sexual or physical contact between you and another person. Examples include inappropriate touching.

Verbal behaviour:  This covers sexual suggestions, hints, comments, jokes, whistling, communication with sexual content, remarks, or blatant requests for sex in exchange for work-related favours, for example, promotions or salary raises. Examples include sexually suggestive comments and inappropriate remarks about your body.

Non-verbal behaviour:  This involves gestures, indecent exposure, or sexually explicit pictures. Examples include showing private parts and sending sexually graphic content.

The sexual behaviour must be unwelcome. 

Unwelcome behaviour is anything that makes you feel uncomfortable or that you do not agree to. It can be hard to address, especially if it’s coming from a boss or senior employee. You can show that the behaviour is unwelcome by expressing your discomfort verbally through body language or in any other clear way.

Just because you were okay with a certain behaviour in the past does not mean it is always welcome. If someone's behaviour towards you causes discomfort, disrespect, intimidation, or humiliation, it constitutes sexual harassment, regardless of their intentions. Your feelings and dignity come first.

Is it still considered sexual harassment if I agree because I felt I had no other option?

You have experienced sexual harassment even if you agreed to engage in behaviour of a sexual nature because you felt intimidated or afraid for your safety or job or if a person in authority rewarded only those who responded to their sexual advances.

What laws protect me against sexual harassment?

Sexual harassment is a form of unfair discrimination prohibited by the Constitution, the Labour Relations Act, and the Employment Equity Act (EEA).

The Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace  aims to eliminate all forms of workplace harassment by guiding the policies and procedures to be implemented when harassment occurs .

South Africa ratified ILO Convention 190 ( C190 ), which is the first international law to establish the right of everyone to a world of work free from discrimination and violence, including gender-based violence and harassment.

Additionally, employers are required to create a safe working environment and enforce a policy against sexual harassment.

What are my labour rights about sexual harassment?

You have the right to:

• A workplace free from sexual harassment.
• Be treated with dignity and respect.
• Equal treatment without discrimination.
• Report sexual harassment without fear of victimisation.
• Have your complaint treated seriously and confidentially.

Where can I find advice and support for dealing with sexual harassment?

If you are unable to confront the perpetrator directly, employers should provide access to a trade union representative or an outside professional for confidential advice and support.

When should I report sexual harassment to my employer?

If you experience sexual harassment, report it to your employer as soon as possible . You can’t be punished for reporting it in good faith, even if you were afraid to report it sooner. You can report it directly to your employer or through someone you trust, such as a friend, colleague, union representative, or human resources official. Review your workplace sexual harassment policy to understand the reporting options available to you. You can tell your employer if you’re not comfortable with the provided reporting methods.

Ways to address sexual harassment at the workplace

Informal approach

You can take an informal approach to address sexual harassment by asking your employer to inform the harasser about their behaviour without conducting a formal investigation or taking any formal action.

Request the individual to stop the actions that are causing discomfort. If necessary, have a trusted person accompany you.

Record the behaviour and write to the harasser requesting them to stop. Retain a copy of the letter and send it using a method that provides proof of delivery.

Request someone else to intervene. You can ask a shop steward or a trusted colleague to speak to the harasser on your behalf.

Formal approach

You can use the formal approach with or without first using an informal approach . Your workplace policy or collective agreement will outline the internal processes for investigating the complaint and taking action.

This should outline:

• Whom to lodge the grievance with
• Time frames for addressing the grievance
• Procedures for unresolved cases, including referral to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration (CCMA) and, if necessary, the Labour Court.

If there’s no workplace policy or collective agreement, discuss with your employer how the complaint will be addressed.

Steps for the formal approach

Filing the complaint:

Describe the incident of sexual harassment.

Provide the name of the harasser.

Specify the action you want the employer to take.

Investigation

Interviews: You, the accused, and any witnesses will be interviewed and may need to provide written statements.

Evidence: Collect relevant documents, such as emails or messages, that can serve as evidence.

Hearing: After the investigation, a hearing will be conducted by a chairperson (either from the company or an external party) where both sides can explain their accounts.

You have the right to confidentiality when it comes to an employer investigating sexual harassment complaints.

What action can be taken against the harasser?

Actions against perpetrators of sexual harassment in the workplace may include:

• Payment of compensation or damages
• Dismissal for serious misconduct
• Disciplinary action against retaliation or victimisation of the complainant.

What should I do if I'm unhappy with the outcome?

You can refer a dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and then the Labour Court for unresolved CCMA disputes. Approach the court within 30 days of receiving the commissioner’s certificate.

What should I do if a client or customer harasses me?

Employers must handle harassment from clients or customers properly to maintain a respectful and safe workplace. While employers can’t discipline non-employees, they must support their staff and take complaints seriously.

Can I lay criminal charges for sexual harassment?

A survivor of sexual assault has the right to press separate criminal and/ or civil charges against an alleged perpetrator. The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007 (Act No. 32 of 2007) covers such areas as rape and sexual/indecent assault.

Can I apply for a protection order against the harasser?

Yes, you can apply to the court for a protection order. This order outlines actions the harasser must or must not take to prevent further harassment. The process follows the guidelines in the Protection from Harassment Act.

You might like:

An example of workers taking action to develop solutions to end GBVH in the world of work – Garment factories and retail stores.

"98% of women workers in garment factories and clothing stores surveyed reported experiencing gender-based violence or harassment." In Their Own Words: Workers address gender-based violence and harassment in South Africa’s garment factories and clothing retail stores

Where GBV happens

Sexual harassment  | Decisions For Life for young women

In Their Own Words: Workers address gender-based violence and harassment in South Africa’s garment factories and clothing retail stores

A simplified guide to sexual harassment  | Women’s Legal Centre

Recent Posts

What qualities should you look for in a shop steward?

Industry wage settlements | Q1 2024

Power cuts have hit the labour market hard

What is an employment contract?

[LRS Podcast] Power and Politics: Navigating South Africa’s Electoral Landscape

Essential links.

Actual Wage Rates Database

Multinational Corporations Database

Agreements Database

Wage Calculator

Essential Resources

The Negotiator's Guide

Bargaining Indicators Online

Inflation Monitor | April 2024

Location-based platform work in South Africa: Mapping the prospects for organising

Bargaining Benchmarks | March 2024

Trade Unions and Trade: A Guide to the African Continental Free Trade Agreement

Wage Bargaining Review | 2023

National Minimum Wage | 2024

Subscribe to receive our email updates

I am interested in:

By subscribing you agree to our  Terms & Conditions