On Aug 2, 8:15 am, "johnmoli...@yahoo.com" <johnmoli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Can "sexual harassment" occur not in an employment environment?
Sure. You recognize that a term can have both a common meaning, and a specific legal meaning in a particular context.
> federal law and state laws where I live apply the legal term "sexual
> harassment" to employment related conduct.
In an employment context, the term refers to a form of gender-based discrimination in which people are treated differently on account of their gender by creating a "hostile work environment" for persons of one gender. That typically means the boys on the shop floor make sexually suggestive remarks to Rosie the Riveter, or request sexual favors from Sadie the Receptionist, or post offensively lewd pictures on the walls, and management knows but does nothing about it. It can also refer to the situation where a manager pressures an employee to have sex in return for favorable treatment at work, the "quid pro quo" form of sexual harassment. What makes such conduct discriminatory is that the environment becomes hostile for women but not for men, or the pressure to put out is applied to women but not to men, or vice versa. A woman boss can sexually harass her male employees too, and a gay boss can sexually harass employees of the same sex. I frankly don't know the current status of how a bisexual boss who pressures his entire staff, regardless of gender, to have sex with him or her, would be treated by the civil rights laws but that is probably also quid pro quo harassment. It could, of course, also be considered "sexual harassment" in the commonly understood meaning of those words and prosecuted as such, if he forces his attentions on unwilling victims. The definition varies from state to state but such conduct could probably be considered some kind of criminal sex offense if it rises to that level.
> I can't find anything about "sexual harassment" in a non-employment
> environment.
It's called "rape", or "sexual assault", or "molestation", or "sodomy", or "lewd and lascivious conduct", or "indecent exposure", or something innocuous-sounding like "third (first, second etc.) degree sex offense". It's potentially a crime.
> If an employee of a company makes unwanted verbal sexual remarks to a
> customer, is that in any way "sexual harassment" if not what civil
> tort or criminal statute would cover it?
If it's merely words, I don't know what would happen; although if the words are reasonably perceived by the hearer as threatening, words alone can constitute an assault.
If the perp (as in your example) exposed himself, or improperly touched the victim, there would be a lot stronger basis to criminally prosecute.
Of course, it goes without saying that the employer is well within his rights to fire an employee who makes unwanted sexual advances to customers and scares them away, thereby causing the company to lose business.
Maybe if you could be a bit more specific in your facts, you could get a more specific answer from someone.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
No comments:
Post a Comment