Sexual harassment has become an important issue in the corporate world. At least six books on the subject have been published during the past year. Newspaper and magazine articles abound. A Business Week poll of 400 female executives revealed that 27 percent had experienced sexual harassment. In a poll conducted by Working Woman magazine 62 percent of the respondents said they had been harassed. Some women’s groups insist that the number is closer to 100 percent.
In October of 1991, Anita Hill’s testimony about alleged sexual harassment challenged the confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Those hearings dominated the nation’s TV screens for days and sexual harassment emerged as an unpleasant reality in the American workplace. More recent revelations of sexual harassment during the Navy’s “Tailhook” convention made headlines and has taken its toll of ranking officers and administrators. Less publicized suits have been brought against the U.S. Army and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Even Japanese businesses are facing up to sexual harassment as an important workplace issue.
The ski industry will certainly face harassment suits unless steps are taken to minimize or eliminate sexual harassment.
It is essential that management be committed to the premise that harassment shall not be tolerated, condoned or ignored. That commitment must be conveyed to all employees during orientation, training and indoctrination, and stated in employee manuals. A detailed harassment policy, part of the company policy and procedure manual, should be available to all employees.
Defining harassment is probably the most difficult part of writing a harassment policy. In suits brought against a number of large companies, federal and state courts are being challenged to establish legal definitions of harassment. Both sides have rights — rights that may conflict. For example, in one case, one ACLU faction is supporting female employees who object to the presence of suggestive pin-ups and the use of offensive language by male shop employees. Another ACLU faction is upholding the shop employees’ freedom of speech and expression.
The Wall Street Journal recounted another conflict of rights. A male employee was fired for “grabbing a co-worker’s breasts.” A federal appeals court ordered the employee’s reinstatement, branding the punishment as excessive. The company has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the ruling.
The best approach for ski areas may be to define harassment in clear, understandable terms, including obvious forms of harassment such as sexual coercion, physical abuse, fondling, disruptive verbal abuse and the exhibition of pornography. As courts and statutes clarify the definition of harassment, ski area policies can be updated.
Imprecise offenses can do little more than muddle the intent and meaning of the written policy and open the door to more law suits. For example: At an eastern college, harassment in the form of “inappropriate laughter” may be cause for a student’s suspension. Behavior “which produces feelings of anger” and “which causes a vague sense of discomfort” are just two of the more nebulous offenses sometimes cited as harassment in company policies.
According to the Wall Street Journal, harassment policies should state that there is no intent on the part of the company to use its policy to impose religious or political views upon employees. It was also suggested that harassment policies note that expectations of excellence in employees’ work performance are not considered a form of harassment.
Individuals who feel they are objects of harassment must feel free to bring their complaints to one responsible same-sex employee (or a designated alternate) who has been named by management as the arbiter of harassment occurrences. The arbiter must be able to investigate thoroughly and to weigh evidence carefully and must be committed to fairness to all parties in any dispute and to the prevention of harassment.
The arbiter’s task is not an easy one. Weighing claims and counterclaims that compete for credibility and often lack supporting evidence, is a challenge calling for the wisdom of Solomon. As in the Clarence Thomas confirmation, truth can be very elusive.
Top management must be supportive of its harassment policies and see that appropriate disciplinary actions are carried out in accordance with written policy and as recommended by the arbiter. Reasonable discipline (obviously, the penalty for sexual assault should be greater than the penalty for verbal abuse) must be applied uniformly to all employees.
One person’s perceptions of sexual harassment by another may be at variance with the other person’s intent and understanding. For example: A female engineer, sitting by an office window, complained that a male engineer sitting across the office often stared at her. The man insisted that he was only gazing out the window while pondering details of his work. (Or was he looking at the distant snowcapped mountains wishing he was skiing?) By simply changing desk locations, her feeling of unwanted surveillance was removed and he continued to enjoy the mountain scenery. Perceptions, even though seemingly frivolous or unfounded, are real to the perceiver and require resolution.
It is important to note that sexual harassment can work both ways. Witness the male assistant to a female company president who was embarrassed and affronted by his boss’s ribald humor. Like many harassed women, he was reluctant to complain, fearing that doing so might cost him his job.
Resort policy, while encouraging friendliness on the part of employees, should prohibit sexual harassment of guests. Harassment of employees by resort guests can be answered by inviting the offending guest to ski elsewhere. “The customer is always right,” has limitations.
When a policy has been drafted, it should be reviewed by the resort attorney to assure that it is in keeping with current state and federal law. And records of harassment incidents — complaints, responses, arbiter’s reports, resolutions, penalties, etc. — should be maintained in company and personnel files for a stipulated period before being destroyed.
As important as it is to keep out of court and to avoid the adverse publicity that sexual harassment causes, it is more important from an ethical and moral point of view to provide a working environment free of onerous harassment. A harassment-free working atmosphere is undoubtedly good for business.
