Sexual Harassment Offences
Sexual harassment generally refers to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that affects the dignity of an individual, especially in the workplace or educational settings. It is recognized as a form of discrimination and a violation of human rights.
Key Elements of Sexual Harassment:
Unwelcome conduct: The victim did not solicit or invite the behavior and considers it offensive.
Sexual nature: The behavior is related to sex or gender.
Creates hostile environment: The conduct affects the victim’s ability to work or study in a safe and comfortable environment.
Power imbalance: Often involves abuse of power or authority.
Types of Sexual Harassment:
Quid Pro Quo Harassment: Where submission to sexual advances is made a condition for employment or benefits.
Hostile Work Environment: Where unwelcome sexual conduct creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment.
Case Law on Sexual Harassment
1. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) – USA
Facts: Mechelle Vinson alleged that her supervisor had engaged in sexual harassment, including physical sexual assaults, during her employment.
Issue: Whether a claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court recognized for the first time that a claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII. The Court held that sexual harassment that is "unwelcome" and "severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive working environment" violates Title VII.
Significance: Established the legal foundation for hostile environment claims in sexual harassment law.
2. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) – USA
Facts: Beth Ann Faragher, a lifeguard, sued the City of Boca Raton claiming sexual harassment by her supervisors.
Issue: Employer liability for sexual harassment by supervisors.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that employers are vicariously liable for sexual harassment by supervisors but can avoid liability if they show they exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the harassment and the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities.
Significance: This decision clarified employer liability and emphasized the need for anti-harassment policies.
3. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011 – India
Facts: A social worker named Bhanwari Devi was gang-raped for trying to prevent a child marriage; the case led to recognition of sexual harassment at the workplace.
Issue: Lack of specific laws against sexual harassment at the workplace.
Ruling: The Supreme Court laid down guidelines (Vishaka Guidelines) defining sexual harassment and directed employers to create a safe work environment.
Significance: First time in India sexual harassment was recognized legally, and it led to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
4. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) – USA
Facts: Joseph Oncale, a male worker, alleged same-sex sexual harassment by his male coworkers.
Issue: Whether Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination applies to same-sex harassment.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that Title VII does apply to same-sex harassment if it is severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment.
Significance: This extended protections against sexual harassment beyond opposite-sex harassment.
5. Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 760 F.2d 1261 (11th Cir. 1985) – USA
Facts: An employee claimed that a sexually hostile work environment created by coworkers and supervisors violated Title VII.
Issue: Whether harassment by coworkers or supervisors creating a hostile work environment violates Title VII.
Ruling: The court recognized that harassment creating a hostile environment is actionable, and employers have a duty to correct such behavior.
Significance: Reinforced employer responsibility in preventing hostile work environment harassment.
6. Randall v. Rolls-Royce Corp., 893 F.2d 371 (6th Cir. 1990) – USA
Facts: Plaintiff alleged repeated sexual harassment by her supervisor.
Issue: Whether constructive discharge (forced resignation due to harassment) is a valid claim under sexual harassment law.
Ruling: The court recognized that constructive discharge due to sexual harassment is actionable.
Significance: Helped establish that if harassment forces a person to quit, it can be treated as a form of discrimination.
Summary of Legal Principles from These Cases:
Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances or conduct creating a hostile environment.
Both quid pro quo and hostile work environment harassment are unlawful.
Employers are liable for harassment by supervisors but may limit liability by taking preventive steps.
Same-sex harassment is also covered under anti-discrimination laws.
Victims who resign due to harassment may have claims for constructive discharge.
Jurisdictions without explicit sexual harassment laws (like India pre-2013) rely on judicial guidelines.
RELATED Blog
0 comments