Employers should be on the lookout for men's sexual harassment claims.

• Author: Holland, Patricia L.
• Position: LAW JOURNAL 2010

According Co the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, nearly 16% of all claims of sexual harassment filed in 2009 were brought by men--more than double the number brought before the EEOC 20 years ago. In the wake of an economic downturn that has resulted in a disproportionate number of men losing their jobs, employers should revise their sexual harassment policies and revamp training to protect themselves from the increasing number of claims filed by male workers.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4.4 million men, compared with 2.3 million women, lost their jobs between September 2008 and January 2010. In the past, men often resigned rather than face the stigma associated with bringing a sexual harassment claim. Now, given the job market, many conclude that they have no alternative but to continue their employment--and lodge a complaint or file a claim.

The current economic conditions also affect companies. Employers must cut costs to stay competitive, and training programs often are eliminated. With fewer supervisors trained to resolve sexual harassment issues, employees often feel that they are left on their own.

But claims brought by men are just as expensive for employers as those filed by women. For example, Carmike Cinemas Inc., a movie-theater chain, paid $765,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by 14 young men at one of its theaters who alleged that they were subjected to a male supervisor's unwelcome sexual advances. In another case, the EEOC filed a claim in 2008 against the Cheesecake Factory, Inc. after male staffers alleged that they had been subjected to fondling, simulated rape and other horrendous conduct by male kitchen staff. The company denied the charges but ended up paying a $340,000 settlement.

A new type of claim

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act governs workplace discrimination, providing that an employer may not discriminate on the basis of sex with regard to hiring, promotion, termination or other conditions of employment. When Congress enacted it, the statute was not recognized as a source of rights for male workers. The courts questioned whether a male worker even had standing to assert a claim. State and federal courts adopted varied stances throughout the last two decades of the 20th century. Some jurisdictions held that such claims were not actionable; others held that such claims could be brought only if the harasser was motivated by a sexual desire; still other courts held that such...