Supreme Court Speaks On Sexual Harassment And Hostile Environment
Q: I wonder if a poster listing names of potential rapists
(ie. random men's names) constitutes sexual harassment?
A: the courts have consistently held that a poster on the wall _by itself_ is not hostile and abusive. If an employee complains about a poster that does not have a business reason for being present, and management does nothing, that starts the ball rolling for complains of a hostile environment. I am unaware of any successful court case in which an employee successfully sued for damages on the basis of sexual harassment where: 1. The theory was that the environment was hostile (as opposed to explicit sexual advances by a supervisor), and 2. The employee failed to take any positive action to bring the situation to management attention before filing suit. Specifically, I do not believe the courts have authorized damages in the situation where a woman walks into a place of work on her first day, sees a Playboy centerfold on the wall, and walks out without a word, heading straight for her lawyer. Sexual harassment is any unwanted sexual gesture, physical contact, or statement that a reasonable person would find offensive, humiliating,