UPDATE: Shortly after this story was written, the U.S. Supreme Court made it more difficult to win a sexual harassment lawsuit by raising the bar for who constitutes a “supervisor” in the workplace – a designation that has important consequences with respect to the employer’s liability. See Vance v. Ball State University.
Sexual harassment in the military underscores a much bigger problem in American society.
Sexual harassment is a major problem in all workplaces but it is extremely difficult – if not impossible – for victims to hold abusers accountable for their illegal conduct. Surveys show that third of American women say they have experienced sexual harassment on the job.
For years, women in the military complained that the military did little or nothing about complaints of sexual abuse. Then two military officers whose duties include preventing sexual harassment and assault were arrested for alleged sexual assaults and the military was forced to confront the issue.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel recently offered a solution that seems oddly misdirected. Hagel said that all of the Pentagon’s sexual assault prevention coordinators and military recruiters will be retrained, re-credentialed and rescreened. But there is no evidence that this is a problem of training; the evidence points to a problem of lack of consequences.
Members of the military who commit sexual harassment and assault have not been held to account by the “employer” and so it continues. And this is also the problem in the wider society. There is a yawning lack of accountability for perpetrators of sexual abuse and the employers who tolerate this behavior.
Victims in non-military workplaces also complain to supervisors and human resource officers who often do little or nothing to hold the perpetrator accountable.
At that point, the victim’s only recourse is to file a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) – which is a necessary precursor to filing lawsuit alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC receives about 30,000 sex discrimination complaints a year and, of these, the agency targets systemic cases involving numerous victims. If the victim’s case doesn’t fit its parameters, the EEOC likely will do nothing but issue a “Right to Sue” letter. That can take 180 days.
Now the victim’s only recourse is to file a lawsuit. The first hurdle is finding a private attorney willing to take the case. This can be very difficult for mid- to –low wage earners because there are more than enough high-earner victims with potentially higher damages. The victim also must pay the attorney’s up-front retainer – which in some areas is $25,000 or more.. People like to blame money-grubbing lawyers but legislatures and judges have made these cases very difficult to win and very costly.
If the case ever gets to court it may be there for only a short time. Federal judges dismiss discrimination cases in the early stages at a much higher rate than other types of cases. If that happens, the victim’s only option is to file a costly appeal. But if the case is not dismissed, it will take years to wind it way through the system.
Occasionally one hears of a particularly egregious case of sexual assault that results in a spectacular jury verdict. These are rare.
In short, it is extremely difficult for victims of sexual abuse in the workplace to hold perpetrators accountable for sexual abuse, not to mention the employers that tolerate abusive work environments. The system screens out all but the most dedicated victims and the most egregious cases. It’s like a lottery that few will win. And that’s a huge part of the problem.
It could get worse
Sexual harassment remains a significant issue across various workplaces in the U.S., with a troubling lack of accountability for perpetrators. Surveys indicate that about one-third of American women have experienced sexual harassment on the job.
Military Context
For years, female military personnel have reported inadequate responses to complaints of sexual abuse. The issue was thrust into the spotlight when two military officers, responsible for preventing such conduct, were arrested for alleged sexual assaults. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's response—retraining, re-credentialing, and rescreening prevention coordinators and recruiters—was criticized for not addressing the root problem: lack of consequences for offenders.
Broader Workplace Issues
This problem extends beyond the military. Victims often find that reporting sexual harassment to supervisors or human resource officers results in little to no action against the perpetrator. The only recourse is filing a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, the EEOC's capacity is limited, typically focusing on systemic cases. Victims must often wait 180 days for a "Right to Sue" letter, only to face the daunting task of finding a private attorney and funding the litigation process.
Federal judges frequently dismiss discrimination cases early on, and those that proceed can take years to resolve. High-profile, successful verdicts are rare, making the pursuit of justice akin to a lottery.
Legal Complications
The situation has worsened following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Vance v. Ball State University, which narrowed the definition of a "supervisor" to someone with the authority to hire or fire employees. This ruling complicates holding employers accountable for harassment perpetrated by individuals who manage daily work activities but lack firing power. The decision contrasts with other federal appeals courts and the EEOC, which include those with authority over daily work activities in their definition of a supervisor.
Case Example
The Vance case exemplifies these challenges. Maetta Vance, an African-American catering specialist at Ball State University, accused a co-worker, Shaundra Davis, of racial harassment and retaliation. The university was not held liable because Davis, though directing Vance’s work, could not fire her. This interpretation, upheld by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and then by the Supreme Court, underscores the high hurdles for victims seeking justice.
Leveraging Automation for Accountability
To address these systemic issues, automation tools like Latenode can provide significant support:
- Incident Reporting and Tracking: Implementing automated, confidential reporting systems ensures all complaints are recorded and addressed promptly.
- Compliance Monitoring: Ensuring continuous compliance with updated legal standards, reducing the risk of legal oversights.
- Training Programs: Automating the scheduling and management of mandatory anti-harassment training for all employees.
- Case Management: Streamlining the entire case management process from reporting through resolution, ensuring timely action and accountability.
- Support Systems: Facilitating access to counseling and legal resources for victims, ensuring they receive necessary support.
By utilizing Latenode’s automation capabilities, organizations can foster safer, more accountable workplace environments, ensuring that instances of harassment are effectively managed and perpetrators held responsible.
[…] See earlier coverage of Vance […]