Editing Sexual harassment (section)

=====Workplace=====
{{main|Sexual harassment in the workplace in the United States}}

In the United States, the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] prohibits [[employment discrimination]] based on [[Race (classification of human beings)|race]], [[sex]], [[color]], [[national origin]] or [[religion]]. {{UnitedStatesCode|42|2000e-2}} was initially intended to only combat sexual harassment of women, but the prohibition of [[sex discrimination]] covers both men and women. This discrimination occurs when the sex of the worker is made as a condition of employment (i.e. all female waitpersons or male carpenters) or where this is a job requirement that does not mention sex but ends up preventing many more persons of one sex than the other from the job (such as height and weight limits). This act only applies to employers with 15 or more employees.<ref name="EEOC-2018">{{Cite web |title=Sexual Harassment |url=https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180308120009/https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm |archive-date=2018-03-08 |access-date=2020-02-11 |website=U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission}}</ref>

''[[Barnes v. Train]]'' (1974) is commonly viewed as the first sexual harassment case in America, even though the term "sexual harassment" was not used.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.wendymcelroy.com/ifeminists/2004/1027.html|title=The Sad Evolution of Sexual Harassment|last=McElroy|first=Wendy|date=October 27, 2004|website=ifeminists.com|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110807125033/http://www.wendymcelroy.com/ifeminists/2004/1027.html|archive-date=August 7, 2011|access-date=2020-02-11}}</ref> In 1976, ''Williams v. Saxbe'' established sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination when sexual advances by a male supervisor towards a female employee, if proven, would be deemed an artificial barrier to employment placed before one gender and not another. In 1980 the [[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]] (EEOC) issued regulations defining sexual harassment and stating it was a form of sex discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the 1986 case of ''[[Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson]]'', the Supreme Court first recognized "sexual harassment" as a violation of Title VII, established the standards for analyzing whether the conduct was welcome and levels of employer [[legal liability|liability]], and that speech or conduct in itself can create a "[[hostile environment sexual harassment|hostile environment]]".<ref>{{caselaw source |case=''Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson'', 477 U.S. 57 (1986) |findlaw=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=477&page=57 |justia=http://supreme.justia.com/us/477/57/case.html}}</ref> This case filed by Mechelle Vinson ruled that the sexual conduct between the subordinate and supervisor could not be deemed voluntary due to the hierarchical relationship between the two positions in the workplace.<ref>{{Cite book |title = Women and the law stories |year=2011|publisher=Foundation Press/Thomson Reuters |last1= Schneider |first1 = Elizabeth M. |last2 = Wildman |first2 = Stephanie M. |isbn = 978-1599415895 |location=New York, NY |oclc = 671639786 }}</ref> Following the ruling in ''[[Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson]]'', reported sexual harassment cases grew from 10 cases being registered by the [[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|EEOC]] per year before 1986 to 624 case being reported in the subsequent following year.<ref name="Cochran-2004">{{cite book |title=Sexual harassment and the law : the Mechelle Vinson case |last=Cochran |first=Augustus B. |year=2004 |publisher=University Press of Kansas |isbn=978-0700613236 |location=Lawrence, KS |oclc=53284947 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/sexualharassment0000coch }}</ref> This number of reported cases to the EEOC rose to 2,217 in 1990 and then 4,626 by 1995.<ref name="Cochran-2004" />

The [[Civil Rights Act of 1991]] added provisions to Title VII protections including expanding the rights of women to sue and collect compensatory and punitive [[damages]] for sexual discrimination or harassment, and the case of ''Ellison v. Brady'' (US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit – 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991)) resulted in rejecting the [[reasonable person]] standard in favor of the "reasonable woman standard" which allowed for cases to be analyzed from the perspective of the complainant and not the defendant.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://shsf.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic%3D445 |title=Sexual Harassment Support Forum |access-date=2006-07-19 |url-status = dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070310223845/http://shsf.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=445 |archive-date=2007-03-10 }}{{full citation needed|date=December 2013}}</ref> However, some legal scholars have argued this does not go far enough and that the reasonable person standard also needs to take [[intersectionality]] into account.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Onwuachi-Willig |first1=Angela |author-link=Angela Onwuachi-Willig |title=What About #UsToo?: The Invisibility of Race in the #MeToo Movement |journal=Yale Law Journal Forum |date=18 June 2018 |volume=128 |page=109 |url=https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1331&context=faculty_scholarship |access-date=10 February 2020 |archive-date=21 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200221161738/https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1331&context=faculty_scholarship |url-status=live }}</ref> Also in 1991, ''[[Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co.]]'' became the first sexual harassment case to be given [[class action]] status paving the way for others. Seven years later, in 1998, through that same case, new precedents were established that increased the limits on the "[[Discovery (law)|discovery]]" process in sexual harassment cases, that then allowed psychological injuries from the [[litigation]] process to be included in assessing damages awards. In the same year, the courts concluded in ''Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, Florida'', and ''[[Burlington v. Ellerth]]'', that employers are liable for harassment by their employees.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=97-282 |title=U.S Supreme Court: Beth Ann Faragher, petitioner v. City of Boca Raton |work=FindLaw |date=June 26, 1998 |access-date=2012-10-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110624090220/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=97-282 |archive-date=June 24, 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url = http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=97-569 |title = U.S. Supreme Court: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth |work = FindLaw |date = June 26, 1998 |access-date = 2012-10-07 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110624090225/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=97-569 |archive-date = June 24, 2011 |url-status = live }}</ref> Moreover, ''[[Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services]]'' set the precedent for same-sex harassment, and sexual harassment without motivation of "sexual desire", stating that any discrimination based on sex is actionable so long as it places the victim in an objectively disadvantageous working condition, regardless of the gender of either the victim, or the harasser.

In the 2006 case of ''[[Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White]]'', the standard for retaliation against a sexual harassment complainant was revised to include any adverse employment decision or treatment that would be likely to dissuade a "reasonable worker" from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

During 2007 alone, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and related state agencies received 12,510 new charges of sexual harassment on the job.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Marshall |first1=David  |last2=Andronici |first2 = Justine |title=Sexual Harassment Law: A Brief Introduction for New Practitioners |url = http://www.kmblegal.com/index.php/160/Sexual_Harassment_Law_A_Brief_Introduction_for_New_Practitioners |publisher=Katz, Marshall & Banks |access-date=18 March 2011|date=23 October 2008 |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090203063912/http://www.kmblegal.com/index.php/160/Sexual_Harassment_Law_A_Brief_Introduction_for_New_Practitioners |archive-date=3 February 2009 }}</ref> In ''Astra USA v. Bildman'', 914 N.E.2d 36 (Mass. 2009), applying New York's [[faithless servant]] doctrine, the court held that a company's employee who had engaged in financial misdeeds and sexual harassment must "forfeit all of his salary and bonuses for the period of disloyalty."<ref name="auto6x">{{cite book |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=3RaGDwAAQBAJ&q=%22faithless+servant%22&pg=PA472|title=Employment Law: Private Ordering and Its Limitations |first1=Timothy P. |last1=Glynn |first2=Rachel S.|last2=Arnow-Richman |first3=Charles A. |last3=Sullivan |year = 2019 |publisher=Wolters Kluwer Law & Business |via=Google Books |isbn=9781543801064 }}</ref> The court held that this was the case even if the employee "otherwise performed valuable services", and that the employee was not entitled to recover restitution for the value of those other services.<ref name="auto6x" /><ref>{{cite journal |title=Faithless Servants Beware: Massachusetts Forfeiture Law is More Severe than Astra USA, Inc. v. Bildman Might Suggest |first1=James R.|last1=Carroll|first2=Jason Collins|last2=Weida|journal=Boston Bar Journal |issue = Winter 2010 |date=January 1, 2010 |ssrn = 1775205}}</ref>

The 2010 case, ''[[Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.]]'' ruled that a hostile work environment can be created in a workplace where sexually explicit language and [[pornography]] are present. A [[hostile workplace]] may exist even if it is not targeted at any particular employee.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.employmentlawblog.info/2010/01/reeves-v-ch-robinson-worldwide-inc-no-07-10270-11th-cir-jan-20-2010.shtml|title=Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., No. 07-10270 (11th Cir. Jan. 20, 2010)|last=Mollica|first=Paul|date=January 19, 2010|website=Employment Law Blog|publisher=Outten & Golden LLP|language=en-US|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160521135648/http://www.employmentlawblog.info/2010/01/reeves-v-ch-robinson-worldwide-inc-no-07-10270-11th-cir-jan-20-2010.shtml|archive-date=May 21, 2016|access-date=2016-06-17}}</ref>

From 2010 through 2016, approximately 17% of sexual harassment complaints filed with the EEOC were made by men.<ref>{{cite web|title=Charges Alleging Sex-Based Harassment (Charges filed with EEOC) FY 2010 – FY 2016|url=https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment_new.cfm|website=Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|access-date=15 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170815232935/https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment_new.cfm|archive-date=15 August 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>