Setting the Boundaries for Public Employer Liability for Sexual Harassment

• Published date: 01 December 2002
• Date: 01 December 2002
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/073437102237815
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/073437102237815

REVIEWOFPUBLICPERSONNELADMINISTRATION / Winter 2002

Wise/LEGALBRIEF

Setting the Boundaries for

Public Employer Liability

for Sexual Harassment

CHARLES R. WISE

Indiana University

Afemale school district employee attends a meeting with male employees

for the purpose of evaluating reports about job applicants. During the

meeting, one of the male employees reads aloud a statement with sexual over-

tones, and the two males laugh about it. The female employee complains

about the incident to the male employees involved and to other school district

personnel. She then files a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportu-

nity Commission (EEOC) and subsequently pursues an action against the

school district in federal district court. Meanwhile, in a conversation with a

union representative, an assistant superintendent revealsthat she was contem-

plating transferring the female employee. Uponlearning this information, the

employee amends her suit to allege that her employer had taken adverse

employment actions against her in retaliation for her complaints and subse-

quent lawsuit. Under such circumstances, does the behavior of the male

coemployees rise to the level of actionable sexual harassment? And can the

employee bring a valid claim that her ultimate transfer was made in retaliation

for her complaints about the harassing behavior?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (2000) protects government

employees from sex discrimination in employment. Courts have ruled that

sexual harassment is a form of sexual discrimination. Two types of sexual

harassment exist. Quid pro quo harassment occurs when employment deci-

sions such as hiring or promotion are conditioned on demands for sex. Hos-

tile work environment harassment occurs when sexual advances or other

verbal or sexual conduct interferes with an employee’s work or creates an

intimidating, hostile, or offensive workplace. In addition, Title VII pro-

vides that it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate or retaliate against

an employee who has opposed a practice made unlawful by Title VII,

including sexual harassment.

320

Review of Public Personnel Administration,Vol. 22, No. 4 Winter 2002 320-325

DOI: 10.1177/073437102237815

© 2002 Sage Publications

LEGAL BRIEF

at SAGE Publications on December 8, 2012rop.sagepub.comDownloaded from