{"id":19460,"date":"2020-01-29T23:46:23","date_gmt":"2020-01-29T23:46:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=19460"},"modified":"2020-01-30T02:17:06","modified_gmt":"2020-01-30T02:17:06","slug":"worried-about-accidentally-harassing-a-woman-dont-be","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/worried-about-accidentally-harassing-a-woman-dont-be\/","title":{"rendered":"Worried about accidentally harassing a woman? Don’t be"},"content":{"rendered":"

Elizabeth C. Tippett<\/a>, University of Oregon<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

One of the consequences<\/a> of the #MeToo movement is a simmering male anxiety<\/a> that a harmless chat by the water cooler might somehow end in a harassment complaint to HR \u2013 or worse.<\/p>\n

Harvey Weinstein\u2019s criminal trial<\/a> may reinvigorate those fears.<\/p>\n

Though the trial offers his accusers a chance to tell their story under oath, it also gives Weinstein a platform to push back. Even before the trial, one of his lawyers characterized<\/a> #MeToo as a movement that \u201cstrips you of your right to due process \u2026 and the presumption of innocence.\u201d<\/p>\n

Weinstein\u2019s lawyers undoubtedly hope they are tapping into the latent fears<\/a> of the seven men on the jury and a broader cultural narrative.<\/p>\n

But are those fears justified?<\/p>\n

As a law professor<\/a> who specializes in harassment law, I have heard from lots of men \u2013 and sometimes women \u2013 who worry they might accidentally harass someone.<\/p>\n

To be honest, it kind of drives me crazy. Here\u2019s why.<\/p>\n

The legal standard<\/h2>\n

Let\u2019s start with the legal definition<\/a> of workplace harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.<\/p>\n

To qualify as sex-based harassment, the hostile or abusive behavior needs to be targeted at someone\u2019s gender, and it needs to be severe (read: really bad) or pervasive (really frequent). And it\u2019s not just about whether the victim finds the behavior offensive. A reasonable person would need to find it hostile or abusive.<\/p>\n

In fact, the Supreme Court has gone out of its way to clarify that harassment law is not a \u201ccivility code\u201d<\/a> and that behavior needs to be evaluated in context. The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote<\/a>, \u201cA professional football player\u2019s working environment is not severely or pervasively abusive \u2026 if the coach smacks him on the buttocks as he heads onto the field even if the same behavior\u201d would be abusive in an office. What\u2019s normal on a football field is different than what\u2019s appropriate elsewhere.<\/p>\n

In other words, for your conduct to be bad enough to qualify as harassment, you can\u2019t really do it by accident. You\u2019d have to make some pretty bad choices along the way.<\/p>\n

Yes, theoretically, you could accidentally grope someone while slipping on a banana peel. Even then, it would not necessarily qualify as harassment because it\u2019s not gender-based or abusive under the circumstances. It\u2019s just falling down.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Weinstein\u2019s defense has portrayed him as the real victim.<\/span>
\nAggie Kenny via AP<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Corporate messaging on harassment<\/h2>\n

Part of the misunderstanding is a result of how harassment is portrayed<\/a> in corporate harassment trainings.<\/p>\n

Training programs tend to suggest that a wide variety of conduct could potentially be considered harassment. They imply that harassment can occur at any time, including while dealing with customers, at an off-site lunch or by overhearing offensive language from others.<\/p>\n

Having reviewed dozens of harassment trainings, I find this messaging somewhat understandable. Companies want to deter harassment, so the safest approach is just to tell people not to do anything that might even remotely resemble illegal harassment.<\/p>\n

Corporate trainers may also be trying to deter bad actors who might otherwise hope that there is some sort of harassment loophole \u2013 like if they harass someone only on a business trip, it doesn\u2019t count.<\/p>\n

Likewise, in a 2003 study<\/a>, Yale Law professor Vicki Schultz reviewed corporate harassment policies and found that they tended to define harassment very broadly and emphasize sexual misconduct. In my experience, companies use broad language<\/a> as an insurance policy of sorts, intended to give human resources some room to warn wayward workers to cut it out before a problem escalates.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Avoiding one-on-one meetings with women can hurt their career prospects.<\/span>
\nDragon Images\/Shutterstock.com<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The cost of avoidance<\/h2>\n

Corporate messaging that dilutes the definition of harassment can have unintended side effects.<\/p>\n

It suggests to more prudent male workers that inadvertent harassment lurks around every corner. These workers might conclude they\u2019re better off barricading themselves in an office and avoid contact with anyone \u2013 especially if that anyone is a woman.<\/p>\n

And an avoidance response can do real damage to women\u2019s careers. A survey by management professor Leanne Atwarter found that<\/a> post-#MeToo, 27% of men \u201cavoided one-on-one meetings with female colleagues,\u201d while a recent study<\/a> by LeanIn.org found that 60% of male managers expressed discomfort in \u201cmentoring, working alone or socializing together\u201d with a woman. And still another study estimated that about one-third of the gender wage gap<\/a> may be attributable to men\u2019s increased willingness to socialize with male subordinates.<\/p>\n

Accused harassers like Harvey Weinstein have a vested interest in portraying themselves as victims who found themselves in this predicament through no fault of their own. When they can\u2019t deny the behavior itself, the only option left is to claim their behavior was misunderstood or consensual<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The reality is that employees go out of their way to avoid<\/a> complaining to HR about harassment because the complaint puts them at risk of retaliation<\/a>. And HR does not like firing people unless they have determined that you are a walking liability that can\u2019t and won\u2019t change. Behind every man who claims to have been tossed to the curb on a thin pretext, there is often a thick but undisclosed<\/a> personnel file that says otherwise.<\/p>\n

Yes, companies should be more transparent<\/a> about what their harassment policy means and how they apply it in practice. But it\u2019s up to the rest of us to confront the harasser-as-victim narrative with a healthy dose of skepticism.<\/p>\n

[ Like what you\u2019ve read? Want more?<\/em> Sign up for The Conversation\u2019s daily newsletter<\/a>. ]\"The<\/p>\n

Elizabeth C. Tippett<\/a>, Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Oregon<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Elizabeth C. Tippett, University of Oregon One of the consequences of the #MeToo movement is a simmering male anxiety that a harmless chat by the water cooler might somehow end in a harassment complaint to HR \u2013 or worse. Harvey Weinstein\u2019s criminal trial may reinvigorate those fears. Though the trial offers his accusers a chance […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":19461,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5],"tags":[3473,7593,1441,1516,708,7594],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19460"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19460"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19460\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19466,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19460\/revisions\/19466"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/19461"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}