The objective prong in sexual harassment: What is the standard?

Richard L. Wiener, Trace C. Vardsveen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In Title VII sexual harassment jurisprudence, U.S. courts use a 2-prong subjective-objective test to determine the viability of a sexual harassment claim: The complainant must show that the employer's conduct was unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment because of the complainant's sex from both the complainant's perspective (subjective prong) and a reasonable person's perspective (objective prong). This online study used a diverse national sample (361 MTurk Community Members) to investigate whether people apply the objective prong in a uniform manner, as the law assumes, or show predictable differences. Participants read a vignette about a female interviewee's allegations of sexual harassment following from severe, mild, or no sexual objectification by a male interviewer during a job interview. The interviewee claimed that she was either harassed or not by the interviewer during the interaction, as well as claiming to enjoy or reject sexualization. Participants made judgments about whether the interviewer's behavior was sexually harassing from the interviewee's and a reasonable person's perspective. Overall, participants' sex and enjoyment of sexualization moderated their judgments of sexual harassment when considering the situation from both points of view, demonstrating that there is no convergence on a unified standard for evaluating whether specific behavior is sexually harassing. Drawing comparisons to obscenity law, we argue that the use of data to form social fact evidence may help decision makers in hostile work environment cases to apply a more uniform understanding of what is hostile and abusive.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)545-557
Number of pages13
JournalLaw and human behavior
Volume42
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2018

Fingerprint

Sexual Harassment
sexual harassment
Interviews
interview
job interview
objectification
human being
Law
Jurisprudence
jurisprudence
work environment
decision maker
employer
interaction
community
evidence
Interviewees
Person

Keywords

  • Discrimination
  • Hostile work environment
  • Objectification
  • Sexual harassment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Psychology(all)
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Law

Cite this

The objective prong in sexual harassment : What is the standard? / Wiener, Richard L.; Vardsveen, Trace C.

In: Law and human behavior, Vol. 42, No. 6, 12.2018, p. 545-557.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8132166a09a14f5caee4a8265ed25250,
title = "The objective prong in sexual harassment: What is the standard?",
abstract = "In Title VII sexual harassment jurisprudence, U.S. courts use a 2-prong subjective-objective test to determine the viability of a sexual harassment claim: The complainant must show that the employer's conduct was unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment because of the complainant's sex from both the complainant's perspective (subjective prong) and a reasonable person's perspective (objective prong). This online study used a diverse national sample (361 MTurk Community Members) to investigate whether people apply the objective prong in a uniform manner, as the law assumes, or show predictable differences. Participants read a vignette about a female interviewee's allegations of sexual harassment following from severe, mild, or no sexual objectification by a male interviewer during a job interview. The interviewee claimed that she was either harassed or not by the interviewer during the interaction, as well as claiming to enjoy or reject sexualization. Participants made judgments about whether the interviewer's behavior was sexually harassing from the interviewee's and a reasonable person's perspective. Overall, participants' sex and enjoyment of sexualization moderated their judgments of sexual harassment when considering the situation from both points of view, demonstrating that there is no convergence on a unified standard for evaluating whether specific behavior is sexually harassing. Drawing comparisons to obscenity law, we argue that the use of data to form social fact evidence may help decision makers in hostile work environment cases to apply a more uniform understanding of what is hostile and abusive.",
keywords = "Discrimination, Hostile work environment, Objectification, Sexual harassment",
author = "Wiener, {Richard L.} and Vardsveen, {Trace C.}",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1037/lhb0000301",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "545--557",
journal = "Law and Human Behavior",
issn = "0147-7307",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The objective prong in sexual harassment

T2 - What is the standard?

AU - Wiener, Richard L.

AU - Vardsveen, Trace C.

PY - 2018/12

Y1 - 2018/12

N2 - In Title VII sexual harassment jurisprudence, U.S. courts use a 2-prong subjective-objective test to determine the viability of a sexual harassment claim: The complainant must show that the employer's conduct was unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment because of the complainant's sex from both the complainant's perspective (subjective prong) and a reasonable person's perspective (objective prong). This online study used a diverse national sample (361 MTurk Community Members) to investigate whether people apply the objective prong in a uniform manner, as the law assumes, or show predictable differences. Participants read a vignette about a female interviewee's allegations of sexual harassment following from severe, mild, or no sexual objectification by a male interviewer during a job interview. The interviewee claimed that she was either harassed or not by the interviewer during the interaction, as well as claiming to enjoy or reject sexualization. Participants made judgments about whether the interviewer's behavior was sexually harassing from the interviewee's and a reasonable person's perspective. Overall, participants' sex and enjoyment of sexualization moderated their judgments of sexual harassment when considering the situation from both points of view, demonstrating that there is no convergence on a unified standard for evaluating whether specific behavior is sexually harassing. Drawing comparisons to obscenity law, we argue that the use of data to form social fact evidence may help decision makers in hostile work environment cases to apply a more uniform understanding of what is hostile and abusive.

AB - In Title VII sexual harassment jurisprudence, U.S. courts use a 2-prong subjective-objective test to determine the viability of a sexual harassment claim: The complainant must show that the employer's conduct was unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment because of the complainant's sex from both the complainant's perspective (subjective prong) and a reasonable person's perspective (objective prong). This online study used a diverse national sample (361 MTurk Community Members) to investigate whether people apply the objective prong in a uniform manner, as the law assumes, or show predictable differences. Participants read a vignette about a female interviewee's allegations of sexual harassment following from severe, mild, or no sexual objectification by a male interviewer during a job interview. The interviewee claimed that she was either harassed or not by the interviewer during the interaction, as well as claiming to enjoy or reject sexualization. Participants made judgments about whether the interviewer's behavior was sexually harassing from the interviewee's and a reasonable person's perspective. Overall, participants' sex and enjoyment of sexualization moderated their judgments of sexual harassment when considering the situation from both points of view, demonstrating that there is no convergence on a unified standard for evaluating whether specific behavior is sexually harassing. Drawing comparisons to obscenity law, we argue that the use of data to form social fact evidence may help decision makers in hostile work environment cases to apply a more uniform understanding of what is hostile and abusive.

KW - Discrimination

KW - Hostile work environment

KW - Objectification

KW - Sexual harassment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054090648&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054090648&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/lhb0000301

DO - 10.1037/lhb0000301

M3 - Article

C2 - 30272458

AN - SCOPUS:85054090648

VL - 42

SP - 545

EP - 557

JO - Law and Human Behavior

JF - Law and Human Behavior

SN - 0147-7307

IS - 6

ER -