While sexual harassment laws came into being with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, very few cases were litigated pursuant to the Act until the 1970s, and most were written off as falling outside the scope of the statute. Today however, sexual harassment, both quid pro quo and hostile work environment, comprises one of the most frequently litigated spheres of sexual discrimination law and is likely dealt with regularly bysexual harassment lawyers in Orange County.
Although there are many matters regarding the realm of sexual harassment which still remain unsettled, it appears that the trend is for courts to answer those questions that crop up with broad interpretations of the law that increase protection for alleged victims and expand the circumstances under which an individual may pursue a sexual harassment claim and obtain a favorable outcome. Many states currently have civil rights laws that proscribe sexual harassment in schools and the workplace. However, the majority of claims are brought under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, which protect employees and students respectively.
The details associated with a claim of sexual harassment have absolutely evolved from the bare-boned Black’s Law Dictionary definition to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is generally relied upon today. The EEOC describes sexual harassment as “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute 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 work environment.”
However, while this more modern definition filled in a number of preexisting gaps, case law was still required in order to give true and comprehensible meaning to otherwise hazy words and to clarify what types of speech and conduct actually amount to sexual harassment.
1986, the year in which the Supreme Court first reflected on a sexual harassment case brought pursuant to Title VII, kicked off a judicial history wrought with pro-plaintiff decisions. In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Court, going off scant evidence in favor of the alleged victim, still ruled in her favor and found that sexual harassment can still be found despite the fact that the sexual relations were entered into voluntarily. Going forward, Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. held that psychological proof was not essential in establishing a successful hostile environment claim, and Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.determined that culpable harassing conduct did not necessarily turn on the existence of sexual desire; confirming the legitimacy of same-sex claims.
Faragher v. Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth established vicarious liability of employers for their employees. These two cases offered defenses for employers that demonstrated reasonable care in preventing and rectifying inappropriate behavior and that employed victims who neglected to capitalize on those opportunities made available to avoid or report sexual harassment. However, these seemingly pro-employer holdings were not entirely so, and the Court narrowed its holdings by explaining that such securities were not applicable in cases where the harassment resulted in material injury to the victim.
It is quite clear that sexual harassment laws have changed and developed significantly throughout the past several years and that sexual harassment has become a more sizeable issue than it once was. Some attribute this evolution to the fact that women now make up a larger component of the workforce, while others believe that the increase in claims is due to dwindling fears associated with reporting incidents.
Whatever the reason, it is important for victims to realize that the law has continued to progress in their favor and that the more people who come forward to litigate their cases and discuss them, the more opportunities the courts will have to address the laws and refine them appropriately. A sexual harassment lawyer in Orange County can be a reliable source to turn to in case you feel you’ve been a victim of sexual harassment. Diefer Law Group has a reliable team that can assist you in your sexual harassment claim.