The Objectives of Sexual Harassment Law, with Application to 1998's Ellerth, Oncale, and Faragher Decisions

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Bennett Rasmusen
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Sexual Harassment Law

scholarly journals Recent Developments in Sexual Harassment Law: Towards a New Model

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Mackay
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
Power Imbalance ◽  
Persistent Problem ◽  
New Model ◽  
Senate Committee ◽  
Sexual Harassment Law ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Positive Duties ◽  
Males And Females

<p>Despite more than 20 years of sexual harassment being unlawful, it is still a persistent problem in Australian workplaces and one which is grossly under-reported. The law is this area should seek both to redress the harm<br />suffered by the victim and to reduce the power imbalance between males and females. The effectiveness of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 in achieving these objectives was reviewed by a Senate Committee in 2008.<br />One of its recommendations was for positive duties to be imposed on employers to eliminate sexual harassment. This article outlines how this recommendation might be implemented, and taken further, by shifting the<br />onus away from the victim and onto the more powerful players in any sexual harassment scenario – the harasser, the employer and the community in the relevant workplace.</p>

scholarly journals Trying to Make Sense of Sexual Harassment Law after Oncale, Holman, and Rene

2004 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Sherwyn ◽  
Paul Wagner ◽  
Gregg Gilman
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Sexual Harassment Law

Sexual Harassment Law in Israel*

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 315-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orit Kamir
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Efficient Treatment ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Social Settings ◽  
Sexual Harassment Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Actual Damage ◽  
The Right ◽  
Discriminatory Practice

The 1998 Israeli sexual harassment law prohibits sexual harassment as a discriminatory practice, a restriction of liberty, an offence to human dignity, a violation of every person's right to elementary respect, and an infringement of the right to privacy. Additionally, the law prohibits intimidation or retaliation that accommodates sexual harassment, referred to as ‘prejudicial treatment’. Sexual harassment and prejudicial treatment are each both a crime and a tort under the Israeli sexual harassment law. The law makes harassers, as well as persons involved in prejudicial treatment, potentially personally liable for either the crime or tort of sexual harassment, or both. The law awards punitive damages to victims1 of sexual harassment or prejudicial treatment — whether or not actual damage of any sort is claimed or proved. Sexual harassment and prejudicial treatment are prohibited in all social settings and contexts. In the workplace, an employer is vicariously liable for the civil consequences of sexual harassment or prejudicial treatment perpetrated by anyone in his or her employ. The employer's civil liability is in addition to the harasser's individual civil and criminal liability. In order to avoid liability, an employer must take all the measures prescribed by the sexual harassment law (including, inter alia , establishment of policy and serious, prompt and efficient treatment of a victim's complaint).

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A United States Perspective

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 29-85
Author(s):  
Joseph M. Kelly ◽  
David D. Kadue ◽  
Robert J. Mignin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Law ◽  
Hostile Environment ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Sexual Harassment Law

Sexual harassment litigation has increased significantly within the United States. It is a cause of action that was created by the judiciary to enable an employee to work in an atmosphere free from a sexually hostile environment. Some parameters of U.S. sexual harassment law are still unclear, but the law now applies to men and women, and the burden of proof has gradually been eased. Under judge-made law, an employer will always be liable when harassment culminates in a tangible employment detriment. The employer is also automatically liable when a supervisor creates a hostile environment, unless the employer can prove that it has taken reasonable steps to prevent or correct harassment and that the employee unreasonably failed to use the employer's anti-harassment procedures. Employers are also liable for harassment perpetrated by supervisors, co-workers and non-employees if the employer is negligent in failing to prevent or correct harassment. Employers are thus well advised to formulate and enforce an anti-harassment workplace policy that allows a complainant to have a thorough, impartial and prompt investigation of any allegation of harassment. Complainants can elect to use federal-law and state-law remedies for sexual harassment/discrimination. The state law, unlike the federal, may allow unlimited tort-like damages. A complainant may also allege common law causes of action such as infliction of emotional distress.

Sexual Harassment Law in America: Thirty Years of Evolution

1998 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asif Siddiqui
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Sexual Harassment Law

Sexual Harassment Law in the USA and Austria

2018 ◽  
pp. 25-42
Author(s):  
Mia L. Cahill
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Sexual Harassment Law ◽  
The Usa
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document