Last updated: April 17, 2019
Topic: BusinessCompany
Sample donated:

Sexual Harassment Essay, Research PaperSexual HarassmentThe sexual torment allegations filed by Professor Anita Hill againstClarence Thomas and the proceeding Senate Judiciary Hearing thrust the issue ofsexual torment into the political sphere, the workplace, and every twenty-four hours life.IntroductionSexual torment is a really wide term and can be interpreted in aassortment of ways. The National Organization of Women ( NOW ) defines sexualtorment as & # 8220 ; any repeated or indefensible verbal or physical progress, sexuallyexpressed derogatory statement, or sexually know aparting Acts of the Apostless made by personin the workplace which is violative or obnoxious to the receiver or whichinterferes with the receivers occupation performance. & # 8221 ; ( Redress for Success, page 74 )Before 1972, there was no punishment for sexual torment of adult females at theworkplace. Not until, that is, the Education Amendments of 1972 were enacted.Title IX of the Education Amendments states that & # 8220 ; sexual torment is a signifier ofsexual favoritism and is illegal.

& # 8221 ; ( What is Sexual Harassment? , page 20 )After the Education Amendments were enacted, adult females began to see that the jurisprudence wason their side and that it was designed to protect them. Womans now saw that-Verbal torment or maltreatment-Subtle force per unit area for sex-Unnecessary patting or pinching-Constant brushing against another employee & # 8217 ; s organic structure-Demands for sex accompanied by menaces of expiration-Demands for sex in return for discriminatory interventionqualified as constituents of sexual torment. ( Redress for Success, page 75 )Soon after that adult females began to recognize that they could be sexually harassed byanybody, such as by employers, supervisors, colleagues, clients, or even bysubsidiary employees.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

( Redress for Success, page 74 ) With this newunderstanding that they deserved equal intervention as their male opposite numbers,adult females began to keep work forces responsible for their actions and utilize the Torahs to theiradvantage. The sexual torment allegations made by Anita Hill in 1991 werenon the first and were by far non the most controversial. May instances andhearings prior to the Clarence Thomas Hearing set the phase for the out interruption ofcraze in 1991.Landmark CasesBack every bit far as 1975, adult females began to recognize that work forces could non move asthey did and still remain within the margins of the jurisprudence. The instance of Monge V.Beebe Rubber Company brought the issue of sexual favoritism out into theunfastened in late 1974. The fortunes were that Monge had been fired after hersupervisor demanded sex favours that Monge chose non to give.

Monge waslater fired and she sued for her occupation back. Previously similar instances hadbeen thrown out of tribunal for deficiency of grounds ( most sexual torment instances areher word versus his ) . Besides, before 1972 ( the Education Amendments ) , there wasno statute law to endorse adult females up in their pursuit for societal and economic equality.The Supreme Court ruled that Beebe Rubber Company was improper in firing Mongeand she was awarded her occupation back. This sensational opinion set the phase for aneffusion of instances of similar fortunes. To farther confirm the freshlyformed definition of sexual torment, the opinion in the instance Algermarle PaperCo.

v. Moody stated that sexual torment is merely illegal if-Sex is a status of employment-Submission or rejection to sexual suggestions affects determinationsrefering the person-When sexual progresss hinder occupation public presentation or make an intimidatingenvironmentBased on these definitions, in the instance Corne v. Bausch and Lomb, Inc.

in 1975the Supreme Court ruled that if a supervisor sexually harasses a subsidiaryemployee, doing that single to discontinue her occupation, that does non representsexual favoritism ; he was simply fulfilling a personal impulse. Along thesame line, the instance Halpert v. Wetheim stated that the usage of harsh linguistic communicationthat was non directed at the complainant did non represent sexual torment.This opinion was reinforced in the Neeley v. American Fidelity Assurance Co,which specified that a supervisors conduct ( stating dirty gags, seting hiscustodies on the employees shoulders ) is an action of personal standing, non sexualtorment.In 1977, nevertheless, those opinions was overturned and Corne and Halpertwere compensated for their losingss.

The instance that overturned those opinions wasBarnes v. Costle, which ruled that if a adult female was fired due to declining tosubmit to sexual progresss, that that was in misdemeanor of the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Act of 1972 and the employer who fired her in apt for his Acts of the Apostless.Further progresss in equality were achieved in the Marentette v. Michigan Host,Inc.

determination, which stated that necessitating provocative frock as a term foremployment violates Title VII of the Education Acts of 1972.The greatest preliminary dirt affecting sexual favoritism andtorment which finally led to the craze of the Thomas hearing was theTailhook Scandal. At the Hilton Hotel in Las Vegas, on September 7th, 1991,Paula Coughlin, including a twelve other adult females, was man- handled, groped,squeezed and abused at a Naval Officer party after the one-year TailhookConvention for Naval Officers. The authorities tried to cover up the incident,but that was unsuccessful. Finally, adult females were fed up with covering withunexcusable sexual misconduct. In the terminal, one admiral had been reduced inrank, and two others were censured for neglecting to step in and halt thetorment.

This apparently unsuccessful event for societal equality was in fact aturning point. It broke the seal of the sexual torment issue for all thestate to see. The Los Angeles Times, in 1992, said that the Tailhook Scandalwas & # 8220 ; a cooling message to women. & # 8221 ; ( Rights and Respect ; What You Need to KnowAbout Gender Bias and Sexual Harassment, page 35 )Clarence Thomas and Sexual Harassment AllegationsIn October of 1991, one month after the Tailhook Scandal, ProfessorAnita Hill testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee sing sexualtorment charges made against Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas.Note, this was non a suit or test. It was merely a Senate Committee assembledto happen out if Clarence Thomas was so fit to function on the Supreme Court.There were no official charges of sexual torment filed against Judge Thomas,but none were needed. This hearing thrust the sexual torment issue into theunfastened.

The allegations were that Thomas had sexually harassed Anita Hill whileboth worked for the federal office of the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission ( EEOC ) during the 1980 & # 8217 ; s.The Senate Committee tore into Anita Hill throughout the full hearing.They questioned why she had waited so long to come into the unfastened with theallegations, or why she chose that specific point in clip to do theallegations. Anita Hill brought many other adult females with her to turn out that Thomaswas non merely & # 8220 ; fulfilling a personal urge. & # 8221 ; All of her efforts to rock theCommittee failed.

Hill was destroyed by rough question by both theCommittee and by Thomas himself. The pitilessness by which she was attacked forevery allegation by Thomas was amazing. The public, excessively, was astonished.The overall sentiment of the state was that Thomas had non sexually harassed Hilland that she was doing most of it up for her ain grounds. Black work forces particularlyrallied for Thomas. They saw that the principal of holding a black Supreme CourtJustice was more of import than standing up for the rights of adult females. About alladult females agreed with Hill in that Thomas had broken a jurisprudence and that he should beheld accountable for his actions.Professional unfavorable judgments were somewhat different.

Marcia Greenberger,co-president of the National Women & # 8217 ; s Law Center, noted that the Hill-Thomashearings & # 8220 ; prompted a sea alteration. . . in the social and corporate apprehensionof sexual torment and the Torahs in topographic point to halt it. & # 8221 ; ( & # 8221 ; Rights and Respect,page 29 ) Peoples, for the first clip, began to recognize that sexual tormenthappened on all degrees, to all people, and that it was incorrect and had to bestopped.

An ad in the New York Times stated that & # 8220 ; Clarence Thomas outrageouslymanipulated the bequest of lynching in order to shelter himself from Anita Hill & # 8217 ; sallegations. & # 8221 ; ( Rights and Respect, page 31 ) This is in the uttermost a correctstatement. Thomas stated that Hill & # 8217 ; s allegations were a modern twenty-four hours lynching ofthe black adult male and that her lone ground for conveying up the allegation were tobetter her ain place. On the other manus, David Brock, a invitee author for theAmerican Spectator, stated that & # 8220 ; Anita Hill is a spot nutlike and a spotslutty. & # 8221 ; ( Rights and Respect, page 32 ) This points out the utter hatred for Hill.

Brock, a white male, represented the general sentiments of that group about tothe tee. Marcia Greenberger to the full represented the adult females & # 8217 ; s point of position.The Senate Judiciary Committee & # 8217 ; s ballot to corroborate Judge Clarence Thomas & # 8217 ;nomination to the Supreme Court was 52 to 48, the closest ballot to corroborate aSupreme Court nomination in history. The Impact of the Hill-Thomas HearingThe state, along with Congress, was equally split across the sexualharassment issue. The ground that this hearing, and non the Tailhook Scandal,thrust the sexual torment issue into the national limelight was becauseJudgess were supposed to be just and merely, non sexual dominators.

If theallegations of sexual misconduct had been confirmed by the Committee, it wouldhold created a great convulsion within the authorities. The populace would swear noauthorities functionary, even those chosen to take the state.The hearing drastically changed traditional gender function outlooks.Work force, harmonizing to Help Yourself ; A Guide for Covering With Sexual Harassment,page 19, must be & # 8220 ; competitory, aggressive, the instigator of societal and sexualinteractions, responsible, have all the replies, fearless, emotionally stable,secure, strong, self-confident, financially successful, and sexually experienced. & # 8221 ;After the hearing, along with rapidly altering attitudes towards gender functionoutlook, work forces saw their functions otherwise.

Bing the instigator of societal andsexual interactions, being strong and sexually experient and self-confidentcould set down them in gaol. This forced work forces to halt and believe if the adult female wantedhis sexual progresss to go on or non. A new regard for adult females came with thisrealisation of right and incorrect. Womans were no longer idea of as & # 8220 ; good masand housewifes, polite, reasonably, neat, smelling nice, sensitive and intuitive,supportive of & # 8216 ; her & # 8217 ; adult male, needless, quiet, happy, inactive, demure, dependent, andfeminine. & # 8221 ; ( Help Yourself, page 19 ) Womans were eventually get downing to be seen aspeers, meriting equal intervention.DecisionEven with the realisation of right and incorrect actions refering adult male toadult females interactions, sexual torment continue