We grow up being told that a part of adult life
is learning
to "deal" with it. Yet, we have legislative
and judicial
systems passing laws that prevent us from having
to "deal."
Today, no one has to "deal" with smoke on airplanes.
And no
one has to "deal" with workplace, sexual harassment.
The
concept of "if you can't stand the heat get
out of the
kitchen" does not meet jurispudential preference
which is to
remove the heat. Though relatively new, the
interpretations
of sexual harassment are already expanding.
Nudity is not a critical success factor in reporting
a sport.
It is not even a factor. Therefore, it is alien
to the
workplace (or soon will be determined to be
if the courts
maintain their current course bearing.) Any
league, team, or
media that further tolerates nudity in locker
room reporting
is standing in harm's way. Birthday suits will
beget
lawsuits, for there are far too many individual
sensitivities
involved for the leagues and managements of
the teams and
media to sooth or control.
It was not too long ago that the classic test
for sexual
harassment between and among adults was the
concept of
consent. Basically, one "no," expressed or implied
by word
or gesture, established the discontent. However,
the
interpretation and extrapolation of laws regarding
sexual
harassment are rushing toward further protection.
Today,
even in the absence of "no," any provocative
or degrading
word, gesture, or action which affronts is considered
harassment under current thinking. The sexual
harassment
covers like and opposite genders of employees
and visitors
to the company of the employee.
Moreover, sexual harassment need not be reported
by the
person who is being victimized. A co-worker
upon seeing the
harassment of a peer can report and file the
charge. And
management, once aware of a sexual harassment,
is immediately
involved and must take action to stop the offending
behavior.
Successful sexual harassment suits have led
to the punishment
of both the company and the offending people.
Examples...
Scenario #1: Employee complains to management
of sexual
harassment by visitor. Management is involved
and must
investigate immediately. If management determines
the
harassment to be real, it must stop the offensive
behavior,
or become liable. (This scenario similar to
the cocktail
waitress who is harassed by a patron. Management
must
protect the waitress from the patron by stopping
the patron's
activity or removing the patron.) Scenario #2:
Employee
complains to his/her management of sexual harassment
while
visiting a client. Management is involved and
must inform
the client's management of problem who becomes
involved and
must stop the offending behavior of its employee.
(Research
has not found a test case, yet).
Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation
of Section 703
of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act VII.
It reads...
Unwelcomed 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, explicitly
or
implicitly, a 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.
3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of
unreasonably interfering with an individual's
work
performance or creating intimidating, hostile,
or
offensive working environment.
The ramifications of broadening interpretations
of the above
clauses, especially No. 3 are great. Today,
the problem of
having an unprotected locker room with mixed
genders in a
work environment is that the risk is greater
than the reward.
One could view that such an environment, per
se, creates an
intimidating, or hostile, or offensive work
environment.
Considering the public comments of parties to
the locker
rooms, one finds it difficult to conclude otherwise.
Again...
Therefore, a few of the questions that need
to be answered by
the various managements are...
If some of the female reporters and male athletes
must steel
themselves for the locker room interviews, are
not both
victims of sexual harassment by the system(s)
which
perpetuates the discomfort?
Have the concepts set forth in the Ludtke case
been
implemented satisfactorily?
Why must Coach Sam Wyche provide his own privacy
curtains for
his team, the Cincinnatti Bengals? And why is
so much
attention drawn to his curtains?
Is time a privacy shield?
If time is a privacy shield, is 15 minutes adequate
time to
take off tape, shower and minister your wounds?