Introduction
Despite the fact that many people recognize sexual harassment as a very serious offense, no specific and clear definition about it has been agreed upon all over the world. The most contentious issue is always on the ‘standard’ that should be used to determine a case of sexual harassment (Dunlap et al., 2015). Initially, most courts across the world used to only recognize sexual harassment cases that involved a woman being forced by a man to give sexual offers for services at the workplace. This kind of offense is referred to as the ‘quid pro quo’ sexual harassment. Such form of sexual harassment is common at the workplace, particularly in the functions of hiring, firing, promotion, transfer and disciplinary action. However, a new form of sexual harassment has emerged, known as hostile environment. The interpretation of the hostile environment sexual harassment has been an issue of great debate with varying views held by different people (Ali & Kramar, 2015). There is ambiguity in the definition of this hostile environment sexual harassment. The guidelines used by courts state that hostile environment sexual harassment is caused by the unwelcome sexual advances as well as requests for sexual favors. The reasonable woman standard has become the guiding principle in making decisions during court cases, with huge effect on the rulings, which are made.
Argument for the reasonable woman standard in hostile environment sexual harassment
There has been significant support for the use of the reasonable woman standard in determining the rulings of court cases. The reasonable woman standard was necessitated by the high level of ambiguity in the definition of the hostile environment sexual harassment. The Supreme Court of the United States recognized hostile environment sexual harassment as a cause of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in the year 1986 (Perry, Kulik & Bourhis, 2004). It is vital to note that the hostile environment cause of action has led to rulings in which courts have mostly employed the reasonable woman standard as a yardstick for evaluation of these claims. The shift from the initial use of ‘reasonable person’ to the current ‘reasonable woman’ standard by the courts is very significant because it is based on a direct interpretation of the provision and purpose of Title VII. Moreover, it represents an implicit inclusion of the important principles of pluralism in to the development of a judicial standard.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It has to be understood that the adoption of the ‘reasonable woman’ standard has attracted huge criticism on many fronts. There are those who have advanced the argument that the standard of ‘reasonable woman’ is premised on a fallacious interpretation of the letter and spirit of Title VII. Others have opined that the principle of pluralism, which is victim-specific, destructively fragments the process of judicial decision making. Additionally, opponents of the ‘reasonable woman’ standard argue that despite its pluralistic nature, it is still inadequate in terms of addressing the needs of the victims of sexual harassment. Another criticism is that the standard of ‘reasonable woman’ fails to significantly represent and make the various aspects of the victims valid.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act provides that it is illegal for any employer or manager at the workplace to discriminate against an individual based on his or her sex. It must be noted that there are two causes of action for sexual harassment that have been in use within the courts. These two perspectives recognized by the courts include the ‘quid pro quo’ and the ‘hostile environment’ claims.
The Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson has become the common case of reference when it comes to the debate on the right standard to use in the sexual harassment claims. In this case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the hostile environment sexual harassment entails illegal discrimination based on one’s sex as defined by Title VII. The Supreme Court also approved, through recognition, most of the hostile environment sexual harassment claims that had be handled within the lower courts of the United States of America (Dennison, 1993). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court referred to the guidelines provided by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission since Title VII does not have clear provisions, which may be used in deciding hostile environment sexual harassment claims. The guidelines provided by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission clearly state hostile environment sexual harassment actions that are in violation of Title VII.
The Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson case gives a good standard for deciding hostile environment sexual harassment cases. However, the problem with the ruling made in this is that it left room for divergent interpretations (Dennison, 1993). It has to be noted that the Supreme Court of the United States, in this case, did not give any definitive standard that can be used for the evaluation of the hostile environment sexual harassment claims. Its ambiguity is specifically on the notion of the purpose of Title VII. This ambiguity has left many lower courts struggling to determine exactly what constitutes a ‘hostile environment’. Consequently, most of the lower courts have arrived at different positions regarding the standard of deciding the hostile environment sexual harassment cases.
Since the Supreme Court failed to give concrete and clear guidelines that lower courts can use to determine the standard applicable in deciding hostile workplace environment, most of them have always chosen to refer to the provisions of the EEOC Guidelines (Dennison, 1993). A lot of these lower courts usually focus on the language applied in the EEOC Guidelines to establish what constitutes a hostile environment. However, the reasonable woman standard addresses this ambiguity well.
The reasonable woman standard of evaluating sexual harassment involves applying a broad view of the purpose of Title VII. Applying this standard enables the evaluation of the sexual harassment claim from the perspective of the victim. It is important to note that before the use of this standard, courts relied on ‘reasonable person’. The reasonable person standard of determining the decisions in hostile environment sexual harassment cases focuses on the perspective of the offender or harasser, but not the victim.
The ‘reasonable person’ standard was applied in the Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co. case, which was overseen by the United States Court of Appeals. In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit maintained the ruling of the trial court that no hostile environment was created by the language of the male employee. According to the Court of Appeals, despite the fact that the language of the male employee and the office poster had verbal conduct of sexual nature, there was no sexual harassment committed, considering the guidelines of EEOC (Dennison, 1993). The majority of the judges on the bench held that the male employee’s language and the office poster displays did not create an environment of harassment worth to warrant the sexual harassment charges against the defendant. The trial court had evaluated that the alleged sexual harassment by the plaintiff, Vivien Rabidue, simply arose because of her acrimonious working association with her colleague, Douglas Henry (Dennison, 1993).
The majority of the Court of Appeal judges ruled that to be actionable, the plaintiff had to prove the alleged sexual harassment seriously affected her psychological wellbeing hence hindering her from functioning effectively at the workplace. The majority judges evaluated this case from the defendant’s perspective, ruling that Henry was naturally a person who liked uttering obscene words towards people and he was short-tempered (Dennison, 1993). Therefore, it just happened that on that fateful day, the victim of his natural obscene speech was the plaintiff.
This kind of evaluation is a narrow view and understanding of the purpose of Title VII, which the ‘reasonable woman’ standard opposes. Using the ‘reasonable person’ standard to evaluate the hostile environment sexual harassment case like this particular one may cause the court to unjustly deny justice to the plaintiff. The reasonable person standard usually aligns the Title VII protection with the societal attitudes as well as morals. Moreover, as evident in the ruling given by the majority judges in the Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co. case, the reasonable person standard also approves the fallacious idea that there is a certain level of sexual harassment, which is acceptable hence not actionable in a court of law (Dennison, 1993). While acknowledging that the language used by the male employee at the plaintiff was annoying and sexual in nature, the majority of the judges still ruled that it was not serious enough to warrant the conviction of the defendant based on the charges of sexual harassment.
In the same case, the minority judges dissented the given ruling based on the reasonable woman standards, which is the effective decision rule for evaluating the hostile environment sexual harassment claims. The dissident minority judges in the Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co. case rightly argued that the reasonable person standard of evaluating the hostile environment sexual harassment cases was gender-neutral hence not practical to the statistics on ground (Dennison, 1993). The truth is that a lot of the victims of sexual harassment at the workplace and the general society are women (Druhan. 2013). Men rarely fall victims of sexual harassment because of their powerful nature. Therefore, the reasonable person standard fails to account for the perspective of the female victim. Moreover, the reasonable person standard fails to take into consideration the wide difference in the views held by men and women regarding the issue of the appropriate and good sexual conduct (Dennison, 1993). It is important to note that the purpose of Title VII was to prevent even the vulgar language that may poison the environment of work from being perpetuated. Just because the society tolerates specific vulgar words does not mean they should be advanced within the workplace.
The reasonable woman standard was applied in the Ellison v. Brady case. In this case, the judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided to differ with the majority of those who conducted the Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co. case. In the Ellison v. Brady case, the judges evaluated the claim raised from the victim’s perspective. In this case, the plaintiff worked as a revenue agent serving the e Internal Revenue Service. It is important to note that the plaintiff in this case was a female. The defendant in this case was a male co-worker, Gray. Gray started asking the plaintiff out for lunch and pestering her with many questions. Moreover, Gray made a habit hanging around the desk of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff unwaveringly resisted the advances of Gray (Dennison, 1993). Therefore, when Gray wrote her a letter expressing his disappointment at her refusal to go out with him for lunch and hearken to his advances, the plaintiff became highly worried and surprised. Consequently, she left the office room in which they were assigned together. Gray then persistently followed her into the hallway demanding that she listens and talks with him. Later, Gray sent her a letter she described as crazy and weird considering the kind of words he used to address her. Therefore, the plaintiff filed sexual harassment charges against Gray.
The ruling of the trial court was that there was no actionable hostile environment sexual harassment caused by the conduct of Gray. However, the Court of Appeals judges reversed the ruling of the trial based on the reasonable woman standard of evaluation. The appellate court judges explained that from the harasser’s point of view as reasoned by the trial court, conduct of Gray may be considered trivial and isolated, but the victim may not regard it in the same way (Dennison, 1993). The appellate court judges emphasized the significance of considering the victim’s perspective in this case.
Therefore, the appellate court focused on the broad view of the purpose of the Title VII as well as its approval of the pluralistic principles. According to the reasoning of the appellate court in this case, it was important to use the reasonable woman standard in order to minimize the risk of reinforcing the existing level of sexual harassment (Dennison, 1993). The reasonable person standard would allow such a level of sexual harassment, but such a decision may encourage the enhancement of the prevailing offense to worse scales.
Conclusion
The standard of reasonable woman is the best and most effective scale for evaluating hostile environment sexual harassment cases. There are many cases of sexual harassment, particularly at the work place. It is important to note that these cases are not always the ‘quid pro quo’ ones, but largely hostile environment claims. Although it is not a perfect standard, the reasonable woman decision rule is the only one that can help minimize the increase of the perceived trivial incidences of sexual harassment. The reasonable person standard only considers the harasser’s point of view hence may lead to the denial of justice to the victim.
References
Ali, F., & Kramar, R. (2015). An exploratory study of sexual harassment in Pakistani organizations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management , 32 (1), 229-249.
Dennison, L. (1993). An Arguement for the Reasonable Woman Standard in Hostile Environment Claims. Ohio St. LJ , 54 , 473.
Druhan. V. Blair. (2013). Severe or pervasive: an analysis of who, what, and where matters when determining sexual harassment. Vand. L. Rev. , 66 , 355.
Dunlap, E. E., Lynch, K. R., Jewell, J. A., Wasarhaley, N. E., & Golding, J. M. (2015). Participant gender, stalking myth acceptance, and gender role stereotyping in perceptions of intimate partner stalking: a structural equation modeling approach. Psychology, Crime & Law , 21 (3), 234-253.
Perry, E. L., Kulik, C. T., & Bourhis, A. C. (2004). The reasonable woman standard: effects on sexual harassment court decisions. Law and Human Behavior , 28 (1), 9.
