Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Sexual Harassment Litigation

By Dorothy K. Kagehiro
August 31, 2004

“Sexual harassment in the workplace is not a thing of the past … it continues to be a serious problem for working women” — Cari M. Dominguez, EEOC Chair, in a press release dated April 9, 2003

Sexual harassment in the workplace is a serious and costly problem for corporate employers as well. Based on reports by women, an estimated 40%-90% of working women have experienced on-the-job sexual harassment. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and state and local agencies have received over 14,000 sexual harassment charges every year since 1992. In April 2003, the EEOC announced its largest sexual harassment settlement ever in the State of New York for $5.4 million, plus remedial relief on behalf of female hospital workers. In 1998, Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing settled a sexual harassment complaint, brought on behalf of 300 female employees, for $34 million. A 1999 EEOC-brokered settlement with Ford Motor Co. — $7.5 million in compensation, $10 million to train managers and male workers to stop offensive behavior, an agreement to triple the number of female supervisors in plants and to withhold raises and promotions from managers at any Ford plant who failed to stop harassment from occurring – did not persuade a federal district judge to deny an attempt by 14 Ford female workers to convert their lawsuits into a class action. There are also indirect costs. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that American businesses lose almost $1 billion annually from absenteeism, low morale, and new employee training replacement costs due to sexual harassment.

This article reviews the psychological research literature on the legal standard applied in sexual harassment cases and on the abuse defense sometimes used in those cases.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?