INTRODUCTION

Sexual harassment in the workplace is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; it is a form of sex discrimination. There are two forms of sexual harassment: 1) quid pro quo, and 2) hostile environment.

Quid pro quo occurs when submission to unwelcomed sexual advances or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature is a term or condition, implicitly, or explicitly, of an individual's employment. This type of sexual harassment occurs between a superior or a subordinate, and generally takes the form of an expressed or implied ultimatum.

In contrast, hostile environment occurs when unwelcome sexual advances or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. This type of sexual harassment can occur between a superior and a subordinate, as well as, between co-workers, an example would be unwelcomed sexual jokes, slurs, and innuendoes.

According to a study released in 1994, the number of sexual harassment charges at the EEOC increased by 112%, see 1994 DAILY LAB. REP. (BNA) 100 d9 (May 26, 1994) (citing study by the Center for Women in Government at State University of New York at Albany).

Whatever the causes, sexual harassment continues to be among the most frequent discrimination claims made in the workplace.

The WWWLIA Legal Dictionary defines sexual harassment as a term used in human rights legislation and referring primarily to harassment in employment situations, related to sex or gender, which detrimentally affects the working environment. The most overt variation of sexual harassment is the quid pro quo offer of work-favor in exchange for sexual favor.

Barron's Law Dictionary 210 (1984) defines sexual harassment as an employee policy or acquiescence in practice of compelling female employees to submit to the sexual advances of their male superiors. This policy constitutes an artificial barrier to promotion in employment and therefore violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq.). Recently, lawsuits brought as discrimination on the basis of gender have applied to both men and women and apply in instances of verbal or physical harassment.

LEGAL INFORMATION SOURCES

PRIMARY SOURCES

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

This act makes it illegal to discriminate against an employee based on their race, sex, religion, or national origin.

Federal Regulations

29 C.F.R. 1604.11(a) - GUIDELINES ON DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF SEX
Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of Title VII .706(f) (3), and 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson 477 U.S. 57 (1986). This case discusses the hostile working environment. The hostile environment claim may be based upon remarks, innuendoes, physical acts, or other job conditions which unreasonably interfere with an individual's performance or create an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc, 510 U.S. 17, 114 S. Ct. 367 (1993). This case is based on the same principals discussed in the Meritor case. The two case mentioned are the only Supreme Court cases to address the issue of sexual harassment.

TEXAS STATUTES

See TEXAS PENAL CODE 42.07 on harassment. Discusses the penalty for sexual harassing an individual.

See TEX. LAB. CODE 21.055 (Vernon 1996).

Texas Cases

Scribner v. Waffle House, Inc., 3:91-CV-2667-R, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3874 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 1997). Over $8,000,000 was awarded in this hostile work environment case. See Judge Grills Waffle House: Calls Chain's Executive 'Liars,' Awards $8.1 Million in Sexual Harassment Suit, NAT'L L.J., Mar. 24, 1997, at A6.

Ewald v. Wornick Family Foods Corp., 878 S.W.2d 653 (Tex. Ct. App..-Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). In quid pro quo sexual harassment actions, an employer may be strictly liable for the conduct of its supervisory employees who have authority over hiring, advancement, discipline, and dismissal.

Mackey v. U.P. Enterprises, Inc., 935 S.W.2d 446, 455-56 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1996, no writ). A sexually hostile work environment includes unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favor, sexually abusive or vulgar language, or other verbal, visual, or physical conduct that unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

Prunty v. Arkansas Freightways, Inc., 16 F.3d 649 (5^th Cir. 1994), reh'g denied, 21 F.3d 1110 (5^th Cir. 1994). Under the common law theories referenced by the Supreme Court, an employer would be liable for actions of a supervisor in the course and scope of his employment or which the employer ratified or condoned.

SECONDARY SOURCES

LEGAL ENCYCLOPEDIA

'Lectric Lawcopedia Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment - Where a person is subject to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature to such an extent that it alters the conditions of the person's employment and creates an abusive working environment.

C.J.S. - Civil Rights 143 et seq. See Discrimination in employment in general.

C.J.S. - Cvil Rights 340 et. Seq. See Remedies under Equal Employment Opportunity Act.