discrimination complaint. Only four or five months later, after my attorney protested did I get my promotion notwithstanding Gilmore's objection. After a perfunctory investigation, OHR found I had not proved that my superiors had sexually harassed me. In August 1977, I filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. S 2000e et seq. In March 1979, a trial was held in district court. The court found that I had "fully proved" my charges of harassment and that my supervisors appeared: to consider the making of improper Nevertheless, the district court found that this harrassment was The It was not until January 1981 that I was vindicated. United States Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that I had proved I had been a victim of sexual discrimination and that the District Court should have issued injunction to the Department of Corrections to stop sexual harassment on the job. Then Chief Judge J. Skelly Wright, in a unanimous opinion for the Court, held that a woman did not need to prove she suffered concrete economic harm to prove she had been subjected to illegal and discriminatory sexual harassment; unless the court reached out to prohibit employers from maintaining a "discriminatory environment," the employer could "sexually harrass a female employee with impunity by carefully stopping short of firing the employee or taking any other tangible actions against her in response to her resistance The court of appeals said that Mr. Jackson should be ordered to inform all his employees that sexual harrassment is illegal and should establish procedures to investigate and correct cases such as mine. In March of this year, the district court that had originally denied me relief entered a sweeping order requiring the Department of Corrections to take steps to stop its practices. I still work at the Department of Corrections and have still not been paid for the time I lost when my promotions were delayed because of my supervisors' discrimination. These matters will be the subject of future court proceedings and I am therefore reluctant to talk about them in detail at this time. I hope that I have given you a sense, however, of my experiences over four years in getting at least partial redress, and that I have been able to show you both how demeaning sexual harrassment can be and how such discriminatory acts can directly affect a woman's employment. Statement By American Federation of State, County Before The Senate Labor and Human On Sexual Harassment AFSCME considers the issue of sexual harassment one of the most insidious forms of sex discrimination. It is a subject of especially grave concern to the over 400,000 women who belong to AFSCME. Although there have been a number of cases where men have been the victims of sexual harassment, the overwhelming majority of victims are women women primarily in subordinate jobs who are especially vulnerable to threats of economic reprisal, either overt or implied. It has now been five years since the Redbook Magazine survey first brought the issue into the public spotlight. Ninety-two percent of readers responding to that survey indicated that they had experienced on-the-job sexual harassment at some time during their working lives. Since that time numerous surveys have been conducted among workers in a wide array of industries and occupations. While the percentages vary, all these surveys have found that a significant proportion of working women generally fifty percent or more -encounter sexual harassment. These numbers suggest that sexual harassment occurs frequently throughout private industry and government. But just counting the incidence of sexual harassment measures only its pervasiveness. The real tragedy is in the effects on its victims. If the victim does not submit to the harasser's demands, economic retaliation is commonplace. This may include discharge, unfavorable evaluation, or failure to get a raise or promotion. www If the situation is intolerable and the victim quits he or she has lost an income and will probably be denied unemployment compensation because it is difficult to prove that the reason for leaving was "just cause. The fear, anger and loss of self-esteem which accompany sexual harassment can have devastating psychological effects. This unnecessary emotional burden cannot fail to affect the victim's job performance in addition to the personal trauma. If the victim submits, he or she may eventually be fired anyway because of potential embarrassment to the harasser. Advancement in the organization may be thwarted because of the unwanted liaison. Thus the victim is placed in a no-win position. But sexual harassment is increasingly being recognized as a serious problem. One federal court after another has affirmed that sexual harassment can constitute sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if the plaintiff can demonstrate that submission to sexual harassment was a term or condition of employment, that refusal to acquiesce adversely affected the victim's employment and, that employees of the opposite sex were not so affected. Costly back pay awards and other make-whole remedies have been granted in a number of cases. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been at the forefront in assisting victims of sexual harassment who wish to pursue Title VII remedies. The EEOC Guidelines issued last year clarify the law and the bases for bringing suit. It is essential that these Guidelines be retained and that the EEOC be given the resources and a mandate to continue to vigorously move against employers who are violating the law. Although AFSCME feels that EEOC complaints and lawsuits are not the best way to initially address this issue, without the backup of support from the EEOC, it will be more difficult than ever to force recalcitrant employers to stop sexual harassment voluntarily at the worksite. Included with this testimony is a booklet entitled "On the Job Sexual Harassment: What the Union Can Do." This booklet was developed to provide guidance to local unions dealing with the problem of sexual harassment. It outlines a variety of steps which unions and employers can take to reduce the incidence of sexual harassment and effectively deal with those which do occur. It was developed because it is our conviction that sexual harassment can most effectively be eradicated if it is confronted at each worksite and it is there that the local union and, hopefully, enlightened management can be the moving forces. But again, without the active support of agencies of the federal government, AFSCME will be able to achieve fewer changes at the local level. Actions at the local level will only be successful if the efforts of the EEOC continue and that the Guidelines remain in place. Without the assurance that prosecution under federal law is possible, many employers will not voluntarily implement measures to stop sexual harassment at their workplaces. Furthermore, there must be remedies available to victims who have no union and who work for employers who contine to ignore the problem. In conclusion, AFSCME believes that sexual harassment is a national disgrace which must be fought on a number of fronts. There has been progress during the last few years, but it is only a beginning. We would urge the Congress to continue the national commitment to eradicating sexual harassment by ensuring that the EEOC is sufficiently funded and staffed to go forward with this vital mission. (Note: In the interest of economy, a publication published by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees entitled "Sexual Harassment (On the Job Sexual Harassment: What the Union Can Do)," February 1981, was retained in the files of the Committee where it may be researched by interested persons, or if copies are desired, write the AFSCME at 1625 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036.) |