Sexual harassment refers to unwelcome sexual conduct in workplaces, schools, or public spaces.
The respondent, a law student, filed an administrative complaint for harassment against the petitioner, her professor, alleging that she was given a poor final grade because he wanted to go on a date with her. A school committee found that the petitioner improperly conducted school-related activities outside school premises, indicative of sexually motivated intentions, in violation of the respondent’s policy of providing its students with an environment free from sexual harassment. The NLRC affirmed, declaring a one year suspension from the University.
In Hill v. Cundiff, 797 F.3d 948 (11th Cir. 2015), a14 year old eighth grader (Doe), was raped at school by 15 year old eighth grader (CJC), who had a prior history of sexual harassment at the school. The school’s policy on sexual harassment was to accept only three types of evidence as demonstrative of sexual harassment: catching the harasser in the act, physical evidence of the harassment, or an admission of guilt by the harasser.
In 2009, a female employee made a formal complaint regarding improper conduct in the workplace, including continuous inappropriate and derogatory comments, by a Northern Territory Police Force member to whom she was a personal assistant, Bert Hofer.
The plaintiff-respondent worked as a sales representative for Hoffman-La Roche Inc, the defendant-petitioner. The respondent alleged that her supervisor told sexually inappropriate jokes and asked inappropriate questions on multiple occasions. She submitted complaints to Human Resources, which began an investigation. During the respondent’s performance review, her supervisor yelled at her and repeatedly criticized her performance, giving her a below average rating. Shortly afterwards, the petitioner fired both the respondent’s supervisor and the respondent.
Section 14(1) makes it a discriminatory practice to harass an individual in the context of provisions of goods, services, facilities or accommodation, provision of commercial or residential accommodation, or in matters of employment. Subsection (2) clarifies that sexual harassment is deemed to be harassment on a prohibited ground of discrimination.
The applicant alleged that the respondent terminated her employment in violation of Section 57 (1) and (2) of the Employment Act, which respectively require that termination must be for a valid cause and only after the employee has had an opportunity to defend herself. In the course of her testimony, she described systemic racial discrimination, harassment, and sexual assault by her superiors in the workplace. The applicant alleged that women were frequently raped or indecently assaulted, but the employer never punished the perpetrators and there was no mechanism for complaint.
Plaintiff worked for the defendant as a police officer. During training where plaintiff was one of three women amongst twenty-four participants, plaintiff started to feel that she could never raise complaints because of her gender as a result of comments such as how the male troopers had better “watch out” or she would charge them with sexual harassment, or about another female trooper whose sex discrimination complaint had been dismissed by the Board.
